Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Ruiz
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6881
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- M/V MAERSK ALABAMA hijacked by pirates off Somalia; crewmembers allegedly injured during incident.
- Hicks sued Waterman and Maersk in Texas in 2009 under Jones Act and maritime law; Hicks nonsuited; waiver issues later contested.
- Ruiz filed a substantively identical Texas suit in October 2009; multiple crewmembers intervened; Waterman and Maersk filed special appearances in Ruiz.
- Trial court denied the special appearances; Waterman and Maersk appealed the denial; interlocutory appeal filed under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014.
- Appellate panel on rehearing (opinion replaces April 14, 2011 opinion) holds: Waterman lacks general jurisdiction; Maersk subject to general jurisdiction; Waterman is dismissed; Maersk’s special-appearance denial affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of special appearance | Waiver occurred in Hicks case by Waterman/Maersk's actions | Nonsuit extinguishes waiver; no waiver in Ruiz | Hicks nonsuit extinguished any waiver; no waiver in Ruiz |
| Competency of Johnston's affidavit | Johnston lacked personal knowledge for his affidavit | Corporate officers may testify to corporate contacts even if based on third-party information | Johnston had personal knowledge; affidavit competent; trial court could consider it |
| Waterman's general jurisdiction | Waterman has continuous and systematic Texas contacts warranting general jurisdiction | Contacts are sporadic/fortuitous; do not justify general jurisdiction | Waterman lacks continuous and systematic contacts; no general jurisdiction |
| Maersk's general jurisdiction | Maersk has substantial, continuous Texas contacts establishing general jurisdiction | Contacts considered collectively do not amount to general jurisdiction; forum non conveniens concerns | Totality of Maersk's contacts supports general jurisdiction; special-appearance denied |
| Findings of fact and conclusions of law | Trial court should issue findings of fact and conclusions of law | Rule 297/296 apply only in trial on the merits; interlocutory appeal not entitled to findings | No error; findings not required in interlocutory special-appearance context |
Key Cases Cited
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (presents general jurisdiction limits for purchases and contacts)
- Guardian Royal Exch. Assur., Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (due process and purposeful availment framework in Texas)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1952) (outline of general jurisdiction by continuous and systematic contacts)
- Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (burden on defendant to negate all bases for jurisdiction in a special appearance)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2002) (minimum contacts and due process for general/specific jurisdiction)
- Reynolds v. Murphy, 266 S.W.3d 141 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (nonsuit effects on trial rulings and jurisdictional issues)
- Farwah v. Prosperous Maritime Corp., 220 S.W.3d 585 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2007) (porto calls and third-party direction affecting jurisdiction)
- Reyes v. Marine Drilling Cos., 944 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (contacts buying services not sufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Conner v. ContiCarriers & Terminals, Inc., 944 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (registered to do business and general jurisdiction considerations)
- Nath v. Hopkins, 238 S.W.3d 492 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (residency of employee not a contact directed at forum)