556 S.W.3d 490
Tex. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Tom Brighouse, a New Zealand citizen, alleges he slipped and fell aboard the Monarch (an offshore rig) off Nigeria in Sept. 2015 and sued for personal injury and related tort/contract claims in Harris County against Megadrill Services Ltd., MD Nigeria LLC, Depthwize Nigeria Ltd., and Robert P. Dunn (nonresidents).
- Defendants submitted affidavits showing no offices, business operations, contracts, torts, advertising, or property in Texas; Dunn is a Louisiana resident; Megadrill is a BVI holding company; Depthwize and MD Nigeria operate in Nigeria/Louisiana and have no Texas presence.
- Brighouse asserted specific jurisdiction because the Monarch was refurbished at a Galveston, Texas yard (hull blasted/painted, additions made) and contended the injury resulted from that refurbishment; he also argued alter-ego liability and that Megadrill/Dunn waived jurisdictional objections by previously litigating in Texas federal/state courts.
- The trial court denied defendants’ special appearances, finding (1) Megadrill and Dunn waived jurisdictional objections by earlier Texas litigation; (2) Megadrill and MD Nigeria were subject to specific jurisdiction because refurbishment in Galveston allegedly caused the unsafe condition; and (3) jurisdiction could be imputed to Depthwize via alter-ego theories.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the special-appearance denial de novo, examined jurisdictional discovery and affidavits, and evaluated general, specific, and consent/waiver theories of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Megadrill and Dunn waived/consented to Texas jurisdiction by suing and litigating previously in Texas | Prior Texas federal suit and enforcement in Harris County show they voluntarily invoked Texas courts and thus waived objections to jurisdiction | Prior unrelated litigation in Texas does not constitute consent to be subject to all future suits in Texas | Court held no waiver/consent: unrelated prior litigation does not give blanket consent to jurisdiction in other matters |
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Megadrill and MD Nigeria based on refurbishment in Galveston | The Monarch was refurbished in Galveston; the injury aboard the rig resulted from that work, so claims arise from Texas contacts | The refurbishment work in Texas did not involve the deck area where the alleged slip occurred; plaintiff offered no controverting evidence tying the injury to Texas work | Court held no specific jurisdiction: plaintiff’s injury did not arise from or sufficiently relate to the Texas refurbishment |
| Whether defendants are subject to general jurisdiction in Texas | (Implicit) participation in Texas litigation and contacts render them essentially at home | Defendants lack continuous and systematic contacts in Texas; not essentially at home | Court held defendants not subject to general jurisdiction (contacts insufficient) |
| Whether Depthwize can be reached via alter-ego veil-piercing tied to jurisdiction over Megadrill/Dunn | Depthwize, MD Nigeria, and Megadrill function as a single enterprise; jurisdiction over Megadrill imputes to Depthwize | Alter-ego theory depends on establishing jurisdiction over Megadrill/Dunn; that jurisdiction is lacking | Court held alter-ego/veil-piercing basis fails because underlying jurisdictional bases over Megadrill/Dunn fail |
Key Cases Cited
- M & F Worldwide Corp. v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 512 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. 2017) (long-arm statute interpreted to the limits of federal due process)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (plaintiff bears initial pleading burden; defendant must negate alleged jurisdictional bases)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts and due process framework)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant be essentially at home in forum)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (contacts must make it reasonable to anticipate being haled into forum court)
- Kelly v. Gen. Interior Constr., Inc., 301 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2010) (plaintiff must show connection between forum contacts and cause of action for specific jurisdiction)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (governs specific-jurisdiction purposeful-availment analysis)