On November 3, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas issued an opinion in the case of Turner Specialty Services, LLC v. Michaela Horn, et al. The case arose after Justin Horn died while working for Turner Specialty, leading his spouse Michaela Horn and mother Atrelle Horn to sue the company for gross negligence, among other claims. Turner Specialty, a Louisiana LLC providing services primarily in Gulf Coast states, contested the trial court's jurisdiction, asserting a lack of general or specific jurisdiction over it.
The trial court denied Turner Specialty's special appearance regarding jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to establish specific jurisdiction. Key details include that around 20% of Turner Specialty's revenue in 2019 came from Texas projects, and the company employed 157 workers in Texas at the time of the incident. Justin Horn had been recruited while he was in Texas for a job at Hunt Refining Company in Alabama, facilitated by Turner Specialty employees. Justin underwent pre-employment processes in Beaumont, Texas, including drug testing, physical examination, and safety training, with many of his crew members also being Texas residents who received their training in Texas.
Justin Horn, an employee of Turner Specialty, was transported from Texas to the Hunt Refinery in Alabama, where he began work on March 16, 2019. Upon arrival, he and the catalyst crew received training on confined space work, air supply equipment usage, and emergency rescue procedures. Turner Specialty provided air supply equipment, including helmets purchased from Edelhoff Technologies, which also had an agreement to maintain and train employees on this equipment. In December 2015, Turner Specialty bought four helmets, including Helmet 29, which was sent for repair in August 2016 due to a broken screw.
On March 26, 2019, while working in an inert atmosphere and wearing the air supply equipment, including Helmet 29, Justin died due to suffocation. His wife, Michaela, filed a wrongful death suit on July 15, 2020, against Edelhoff for products liability and negligence, premises owner Hunt for negligence, and Turner Specialty for gross negligence, as the company had workers’ compensation insurance that compensated the family. Later, Justin’s mother was added as a plaintiff, along with Turner Industries, the parent company of Turner Specialty, and another equipment supplier.
The Horns claimed that Justin was using a defective "Air Supply System" manufactured by Edelhoff, which malfunctioned without warning, leading to his death. They alleged the system was in an unreasonably dangerous condition at the time of sale and that Edelhoff’s modifications rendered it defective. Additionally, they argued Edelhoff failed to maintain the equipment and train inspection and maintenance personnel adequately. Negligence claims against Turner Industries included failure to train employees properly, while the gross negligence claim against Turner Specialty highlighted the extreme risk of harm due to its actions and omissions.
Turner Specialty and Turner Industries contested the trial court's personal jurisdiction, asserting both general and specific jurisdiction were lacking. Turner Industries specifically countered the Horns' claim of "doing business" in Texas, refuting allegations that it had "negligently trained, hired, and/or retained" Texas residents involved in the catalyst work related to Justin Horn's death. Turner Industries claimed it did not employ or train Justin or the catalyst crew, supported by an affidavit from Gerald Braud, an executive vice president, who clarified that Turner Specialty, a subsidiary, was responsible for the catalyst work at the Hunt Refinery under a contract with Hunt.
The Horns also claimed that Turner Specialty conducted significant business in Texas, recruited Justin, a Texas resident, and had an oral employment contract with him. Turner Specialty acknowledged it hired Justin but denied knowledge of his Texas residency and the existence of an oral contract. It also contended that the Horns' claim did not relate to its dealings with Edelhoff. While Turner Specialty admitted to providing safety training in Texas, it downplayed its relevance to jurisdiction, arguing that the alleged failures in training did not relate to the incident in Alabama. An affidavit from James Watkins, a vice president of Turner Specialty, indicated that Justin Horn began his safety training in Alabama shortly after arriving there.
Justin Horn and the Texas residents hired by Turner Specialty received only basic Safety and Health Orientation (SHO) training in Texas, which covered general safety principles but did not address specific inert atmosphere work. All relevant training for the Catalyst work at the Hunt Refinery occurred outside Texas and included confined space training, helmet user qualification, fresh air supply, and rescue training. Turner Specialty characterized the safety training in Texas as "fortuitous," noting that onboarding occurred at the most convenient Texas personnel office for new hires rather than at its Louisiana office.
Turner Specialty asserted that its connections to Texas, including the training provided, lacked a substantial relationship to the litigation, emphasizing that the incident leading to the plaintiffs' claims happened in Alabama and that relevant training occurred there. It argued that the Texas training did not establish the necessary "substantial connection" to the operative facts of the case and claimed it was not subject to general jurisdiction in Texas due to insufficient continuous contacts.
The Horns countered that the trial court possessed both general and specific jurisdiction over Turner Specialty, citing the safety training provided in Texas, which involved Justin and 10 other crew members. They presented evidence, including discovery responses confirming the training and a safety test completed by Justin shortly before his death. The trial court initially granted Turner Industries’ special appearance but denied Turner Specialty’s, leading to the latter's appeal. The appellate court stated that the review of personal jurisdiction is a question of law assessed de novo.
A Texas court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident if two criteria are met: (1) the Texas long-arm statute permits it, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction aligns with due-process requirements. The long-arm statute allows jurisdiction over a nonresident doing business in Texas, which includes contracting with Texas residents, committing a tort in Texas, or recruiting Texas residents for employment. These activities are not exclusive, meaning other actions may also constitute doing business. The statute's broad language extends jurisdiction to the limits of federal constitutional due process.
To satisfy due process, a nonresident must have "minimum contacts" with Texas, ensuring that jurisdiction does not violate fair play and substantial justice. Minimum contacts are established when a defendant purposefully avails itself of conducting activities within Texas. The purposeful availment analysis requires that the defendant's actions are relevant, deliberate—not random or fortuitous—and that the defendant seeks benefits from the jurisdiction. Contacts can lead to either specific or general jurisdiction, with specific jurisdiction focusing on the requirement that the cause of action must arise from or relate to the defendant's contacts with Texas.
A trial court assesses a special appearance based on pleadings, stipulations, affidavits, discovery results, and oral testimony, as outlined in TEX. R. CIV. P. 120a(3). In determining personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must initially plead sufficient allegations to bring a nonresident defendant under the Texas long-arm statute, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to negate these claims. The Horns’ allegations that Turner Specialty conducted substantial business in Texas and entered into contracts with Texas residents met the minimal pleading requirement. The court found that Turner Specialty's provision of safety training to a Texas resident and his crewmates established specific jurisdiction, as even a single contact with Texas can suffice for jurisdiction purposes. Evidence indicated that training occurred shortly before the incident in question, with a significant portion of Justin’s crewmates also receiving training in Texas. The court analyzed whether Turner Specialty's actions constituted purposeful availment, rejecting its characterization of the training as accidental. Instead, it noted that Turner Specialty actively sought Justin’s skills, indicating a deliberate engagement with Texas.
Jurisdictional evidence indicated that Ellis directed Justin to the Beaumont personnel office for onboarding and safety training, which was deemed a more convenient location. This practice was not unique to Justin; Turner Specialty routinely utilized the Beaumont office for onboarding Texas residents, as confirmed by Watkins’ affidavit. Braud described the Beaumont office as a shared facility, and it was noted that ten other employees from Justin's crew also received training there. The decision for Justin’s training location was not initiated by him, nor was it random. Turner Specialty had an arrangement with Turner Industries to use the Beaumont office specifically for onboarding Texas hires.
Had Turner Specialty wished to avoid jurisdiction in Texas, they could have mandated that training occur elsewhere. The trial court could reasonably infer that Turner Specialty benefited from conducting training in Texas, as it attracted local workers with necessary skills. This arrangement constituted purposeful availment of conducting business in Texas. However, purposeful availment alone does not justify specific jurisdiction; there must be a connection between the defendant’s forum contacts and the litigation. The Texas Supreme Court emphasized that a substantial connection must exist between the contacts and the litigation's operative facts. Recent guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that specific jurisdiction does not necessitate a strict causal link; rather, it requires that the suit arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum.
Causation is a key component in determining jurisdiction, but relationships can also establish jurisdiction without a strict causal link. The Supreme Court emphasized that the phrase "relate to" imposes limits to protect nonresident defendants, requiring a connection between the forum and the underlying controversy, including activities that took place in the forum. In the case of Luciano, the Supreme Court of Texas refrained from deciding whether its "substantial connection" standard exceeded due process, focusing instead on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Ford Motor Co. Ford upheld specific jurisdiction based on a strong relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation, which is essential for establishing specific jurisdiction. The inquiry into relatedness does not necessitate a strict causal relationship but requires a connection between the defendant’s purposeful contacts in Texas and the plaintiff’s suit.
In the case of Turner Specialty, the issue of whether its failure to train contributed to a death is central to the Horns’ gross negligence claim. The safety training provided in Texas is directly related to this claim, supporting specific jurisdiction over Turner Specialty. Although Turner Specialty argues that the incident's occurrence in Alabama weakens the connection, the relationship between its conduct in Texas and the alleged liability is sufficiently close to support specific jurisdiction, contrasting with the Moki Mac case where no specific jurisdiction was found due to the lack of a relevant connection to Texas.
The decedent died outside Texas, but unlike a previous case involving Moki Mac, there were allegations of negligent conduct by the non-resident defendant in Texas that contributed to the death. Moki Mac’s only connection to Texas was sending a brochure and a release with alleged misrepresentations, which were not central to the negligence claim. In contrast, Turner Specialty’s alleged negligent safety training in Texas is directly related to its liability. The Horns claim that this improper training contributed to the decedent's death, establishing a relevant connection to Texas.
Turner Specialty challenges jurisdiction based on "interstate federalism," which aims to balance fair treatment of defendants with the powers of different states. The Supreme Court’s decision in Ford emphasizes that personal jurisdiction is appropriate when a defendant has significant ties to the forum state, as seen in cases involving local plaintiffs and incidents. Turner Specialty argues that Alabama is the "most natural State" for this lawsuit, since that is where the incident occurred. However, this argument is flawed because the decedent was a Texas resident and had only been in Alabama for a short period when the fatal incident happened, having been recruited and partially trained in Texas.
The analysis regarding jurisdiction in this case reveals a nuanced approach to interstate federalism, contrasting with the clearer precedents set in Ford. In Ford, the Court recognized states' interests in providing residents with accessible forums for injury claims against out-of-state entities and enforcing safety regulations. Similarly, Texas has a vested interest in offering a convenient forum for its residents, particularly when an individual was recruited, trained, and employed in Texas by an out-of-state entity, subsequently sent to another state for work in hazardous conditions.
Turner Specialty argued that its relevant conduct was primarily tied to actions in Alabama, where the training and supervision of equipment occurred, rather than its activities in Texas. While the Horns have made claims based on Turner Specialty's conduct in Alabama, the existence of contacts in one jurisdiction does not negate the purposeful connections established in another. The Texas training, while general, is still pertinent to the jurisdictional analysis, and the assertion that it did not contribute to the incident is a merits issue inappropriate for a special appearance.
The court concluded that Turner Specialty had purposefully engaged in activities within Texas, leading to the Horns' claims of gross negligence. The evidence presented indicated sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to justify specific personal jurisdiction over Turner Specialty. The trial court's denial of Turner Specialty’s special appearance was upheld, as the entity did not contest the fairness of exercising jurisdiction. The ruling reaffirms that jurisdictional considerations are distinct from merits or liability issues. The court's order to deny the special appearance was affirmed, with the panel comprising Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower.
