Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellants are veterans of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and some of their family members. In 1994, appellants filed suit against approximately 80 defendants alleging that the defendants sold to Iraq the material, equipment, and technology used to create biological and chemical weapons used in the war. The case was removed to federal court, which dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Subsequent to remand, Kl�ckner & Co. and Kl�ckner INA (the Kl�ckner defendants), were added. The Kl�ckner defendants filed special appearances pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a, challenging personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted both special appearances, and appellants filed this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order. HOLDING:Affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the Kl�ckner defendants’ contacts with Texas give rise to general jurisdiction. Appellants do not contend that Kl�ckner & Co. has had any contacts with Texas. Appellants contend that the Texas contacts of two subsidiary corporations, Kl�ckner Industrial Installations Inc. (Kl�ckner Industrial) and Union Air Transport (UAT), should be imputed to the Kl�ckner defendants. Appellants point to various contacts that Kl�ckner Industrial had with Texas engineering firms between 1986 and 1994. However, the only relevant contacts with the Texas engineering firms are those that occurred prior to the time of appellants’ injuries, the latest of which had to have happened before the summer of 1991. During this time period, Kl�ckner Industrial’s president attended several meetings in Houston, Texas, in an effort to identify technical partners to work with Kl�ckner Industrial on international projects. Kl�ckner Industrial also entered into four contracts with Texas-based engineering firms and, at various times, corresponded with them. Appellants contend that Kl�ckner & Co., Kl�ckner INA, Kl�ckner Industrial, and UAT (collectively, the German entities) operate as a single business enterprise under Texas law. Therefore, appellants contend that the Texas contacts of UAT and Kl�ckner Industrial should be imputed to the Kl�ckner defendants for personal-jurisdiction purposes. Appellants did not plead the “single business enterprise” theory as a basis for imputing the contacts of Kl�ckner Industrial and UAT to the German defendants. Instead, appellants alleged that the German defendants should be subject to liability based on theories of agency and alter ego, and the German concept of Konzern. Furthermore, appellants did not present the “single business enterprise” theory at the special appearance hearing. The court holds that because appellants failed to present the “single business enterprise” theory to the trial court, they have waived their contention that the German entities operate as a single business enterprise. The court further holds that there is some evidence to support the trial court’s implied finding that Kl�ckner Industrial is not the agent of Kl�ckner INA, and that this finding is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the court concludes that the Texas contacts of Kl�ckner Industrial and UAT cannot be imputed to the Kl�ckner defendants under either a “single business enterprise” theory or an agency theory. Having concluded that the Texas contacts of Kl�ckner Industrial and UAT cannot be imputed to the Kl�ckner defendants, the court holds that the only relevant Texas contact for jurisdictional purposes is the single visit to Texas by Kl�ckner INA’s former CEO. The court determines that this single contact is insufficient to support general jurisdiction over the Kl�ckner defendants. Accordingly, the court affirms the trial court’s judgment granting the special appearances of the Kl�ckner defendants. OPINION:Seymore, J.; Hedges, C.J., Fowler and Seymore, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.