The Texarkana Court of Appeals has affirmed a Red River County district court’s denial of a North Carolina defendant’s special appearance in a product liability death case.
Adept Machine Tools, Inc. v. Lindsey Underwood, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Charles Trent Underwood, et al. (No. 06-26-00083-CV; October 21, 2026) arose from a workplace fatality. Decedent was working for Martin Sprocket and Gear as the operator of a vertical lathe machine. He clamped a metal sprocket into the machine’s chuck, which was intended to keep the sprocket in place during operation. He closed the machine door and started the program. Something went wrong, sending the heavy steel sprocket free of the machine. When the sprocket spun around the machine, it struck the machine’s metal door, forcing it outward and killing Decedent. Plaintiff sued for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of the warranty of merchantability against Adept and others. Adept filed a special appearance, arguing that Texas had neither general nor specific jurisdiction. The trial court allowed jurisdictional discovery before denying the special appearance. Adept appealed.
In an opinion by Chief Justice van Cleef, the court of appeals affirmed. The record showed that Hyundai Korea manufactured the machine for delivery to and assembly in the U.S. Hyundai America notified its licensed distributors, including Plano-based Hillary Machinery, that the machine was available for sale. Hillary notified Martin Sprocket, which bought the machine after Hillary communicated with Adept, a North Carolina company, about modifying the machine according to Martin Sprocket’s specifications. Adept modified the machine “by installing a ‘[twenty-four inch]’ HC Series Sealed Power Chuck – 3 – Jaw, High-Speed, Closed – Center Power Chuck.” Adept then shipped the modified machine to Texas.
Plaintiff argued that Adept contracted with a Texas customer to modify the machine, knew the modifications were for a Texas customer, and shipped the modified machine to Texas. Plaintiff further alleged that the modified chuck installed by Adept was defective and caused an accident in Texas. The court found that these facts were sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s initial burden to plead that Adept did business in Texas under the Texas long-arm statute.
The burden then shifted to Adept to negate jurisdiction. Adept argued that it didn’t purposefully avail itself of Texas because it had no employees, offices, or other physical presence in Texas. As the court observed, however, “[p]urposeful availment includes deliberately engaging in significant activities within a state or creating continuous obligations with residents of the forum,” including “seeking profit, benefits, or advantage from the forum” (citations omitted). Additionally, “a single [purposeful] act can support specific jurisdiction ….” Adept argued that since “[p]urposeful availment turns on the defendant’s choices,” Hillary’s initial contact with Adept was not sufficient to establish Adept’s connection to the state. The court was unimpressed, holding that “Adept nonetheless purposefully availed itself of doing business in Texas by accepting a contract that specifically included modifying a product for a Texas customer.” As far as Adept’s minimum contacts with Texas were concerned, these were established when Adept purposefully contracted with a Texas customer for product modifications prescribed by another Texas customer.
“Here, it was foreseeable that Adept could anticipate being haled into court in Texas for alleged damages arising out of the modifications it completed to the Machine,” the court wrote. “As a result, the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Adept sought ‘some benefit, advantage or profit by availing itself of’ doing business in Texas” (citations omitted). As for the second prong of the test, which requires that the cause of action arise from or relate to defendant’s forum contacts, Plaintiff alleged that the Adept’s modifications of the machine contributed to this fatal accident. “That established,” concluded the court, “the ‘substantial connection’ required between Adept’s contacts and the operative facts of the litigation.” Adept thus failed to negate all bases for personal jurisdiction.
Looking to whether exercising jurisdiction over Adept would comport with fair play and substantial justice, the court noted that Adept didn’t explain why defending a lawsuit in Texas would be burdensome. It further determined that Texas had a significant interest in exercising jurisdiction arising from an injury to a Texas resident, as a long as the purposeful availment requirement is met. After all, the accident occurred in Texas, the witnesses regarding causation and damages were in Texas, and other Texas defendants are involved in the case. These facts supported Plaintiff’s interest in obtaining “convenient and effective relief” in Texas. The parties didn’t address the other two prongs of the Texas, the interstate-judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution or any difference in “fundamental substantive social policies” between Texas and North Carolina. The court thus ruled that the trial court properly denied Adept’s special appearance.
