The Texas Supreme Court has reversed a Corpus Christi Court of Appeals decision affirming a trial court order denying the special appearance of a South Korean parts manufacturer of an allegedly defective fuel pump.
Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd. v. Paul Swacina, as Successor Guardian of the Person and Estate of Johari Kibibi Powell, an Incapacitated Person, and Paul Swacina as Next Friend of D.A.P., D.A.C., and D.A.C., Minor Children (No. 24-0207; June 20, 2025) arose from a rear-end collision allegedly caused when a defective fuel pump failed and the vehicle, a 2009 Hyundai Elantra, stalled in the middle lane. Plaintiff, who suffered incapacitating injuries in the accident, sued the South Korean manufacturer of the fuel pump for negligence, gross negligence, misrepresentation, product liability, and other claims. Hyundam filed a special appearance on the basis that it did no business in Texas, its pumps were designed and manufactured in South Korea, it sold 99% of its pumps to another South Korean company that manufactures fuel tanks for Hyundai vehicles, and that it sold less than 1% of its pumps to a subsidiary of Hyundai that sold and distributed service parts to Hyndai dealers across the world. The trial court denied the special appearance. The court of appeals affirmed.
In a per curiam opinion, SCOTX reversed and dismissed the case. Noting that this case raises many of the same issues as BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. v. Shaik, which was decided on the same day, the Court reiterated that “‘a defendant [must] specifically target Texas’ to be subject to personal jurisdiction; ‘it is not enough that a defendant may foresee some of its products’ eventually arriving here.’” As in Rotax with respect to an Austrian aircraft-engine manufacturer, there was no evidence that Hyundam specifically targeted the Texas market for its fuel pumps. Although “[d]esigning a product for a region that includes Texas makes it foreseeable that the product will end up in Texas,” the Court observed, “the fact that Hyundam designed the fuel pump for North America and knew that it was sold in Texas does not, by itself, constitute additional conduct targeting Texas.” Defendant must have purposeful contacts with Texas, not a larger region, such as the whole of North America. The company didn’t control where the vehicles containing its pumps were sold, never sought to do business in Texas, maintained no offices, employees, or agents in Texas, and never advertised, marketed, or sold products in Texas.
The twin decisions in Rotax and Hyundam should put an end to product liability claims against foreign manufacturers who do nothing more than manufacture a product and hand it off either to an independent distributor with no (or limited) strings attached (Rotax) or to another foreign manufacturer of a product that incorporates the manufacturer’s product that itself doesn’t purposefully target Texas (Hyundam), even if the product ends up being purchased here. At least we hope so.
