William Morris, as Administrator of the Estate of Larry Morris v. H G Spec Inc., 09-15-00283-CV

Background

In July 2011 Larry Morris, a resident at an adult care facility in Beaumont, Texas, was severely scalded during a bath and later died; plaintiff William Morris (administrator) sued multiple defendants including H G Spec, Cash Acme, and several Australian "Reliance" entities alleging negligence and strict liability regarding a thermostatic mixing valve (TMV).
Plaintiff’s operative pleading alleged the TMV (marked with HG/HG Specialties) was designed, manufactured, marketed, or distributed by H G Spec and various Reliance entities and asserted the Reliance entities operated as a single enterprise and/or in concert with H G Spec.
H G Spec and three Reliance entities each filed verified special appearances supported by corporate affidavits and deposition excerpts denying sufficient contacts with Texas; Cash Acme did not contest jurisdiction.
Trial court granted all four special appearances and dismissed claims against those defendants with prejudice; Plaintiff appealed from the interlocutory orders.
On appeal the court reviewed jurisdiction de novo, applying Texas long-arm and due-process minimum-contacts principles for general and specific jurisdiction and evaluating Plaintiff’s evidence (or lack thereof) tying the defendants’ forum contacts to the operative facts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas has general jurisdiction over H G Spec	H G Spec engaged in longstanding business contacts with Texas (rep network, sales reps, visits to Dallas suppliers) making it "at home" in Texas	H G Spec ceased U.S./Texas distribution after 2002, has no offices, agents, property, bank accounts, employees, or regular business in Texas	No — contacts were sporadic/limited and insufficient for general jurisdiction
Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over H G Spec	H G Spec purposefully directed distribution/marketing into Texas via manufacturer’s reps and therefore should expect to be haled into court for defective products	H G Spec sold its inventory and rep network to Reliance in 2001–2002, presented evidence tying TMV distribution control to Reliance and no proof HG supplied the valve at issue	No — plaintiff failed to show a substantial connection between H G Spec’s contacts and the injury/product at issue
Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Reliance Worldwide and related Reliance entities	The Reliance entities collectively marketed/sold TMVs into the U.S./Texas and should be subject to jurisdiction (including via alter-ego / single-enterprise theory)	Each Reliance entity produced affidavits/deposition evidence denying registration, offices, solicitation, or purposeful Texas contacts; plaintiff produced no evidence linking each entity to Texas sales of this valve	No — defendants negated jurisdictional allegations and plaintiff failed to present evidence of purposeful, substantially connected contacts or to prove alter-ego/fusion

Key Cases Cited

Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 414 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2013) (standard for pleading and proving personal jurisdiction; burden-shifting framework)
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (burden-shifting and proof required to establish jurisdiction)
Spir Star AG v. Kimich, 310 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2010) (limits of stream-of-commerce and additional conduct required for specific jurisdiction)
Retamco Operating, Inc. v. Republic Drilling, Co., 278 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. 2009) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment analysis)
Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005) (focus on defendant’s activities and expectations for purposeful availment)
CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (state long-arm vs. due process analysis; stream-of-commerce discussion)
PHC-Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2007) (general jurisdiction requires substantially higher contacts)
Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007) (continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts needed for general jurisdiction)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (anticipation of being haled into court standard)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (specific jurisdiction and relationship among forum, defendant, and litigation)
Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (plurality on stream-of-commerce and need for additional conduct to establish specific jurisdiction)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (multiple contacts may still be insufficient for general jurisdiction)