Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd. v. Swacina, 24-0207, June 20, 2025.
On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas
Synopsis
The Texas Supreme Court held that Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd. was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because there was no evidence Hyundam specifically targeted Texas—mere foreseeability that products might reach Texas was insufficient. The Court also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to strike the affiant’s testimony for lack of personal knowledge.
Relevance to Family Law
Although arising from a products-liability dispute, the opinion reinforces two core procedural principles family law practitioners must apply: (1) personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporations requires targeted contacts with Texas, not mere foreseeability that goods or services might end up here; and (2) affidavits submitted in opposition to or in support of special appearances must meet the personal‑knowledge and foundation requirements under Texas law. These principles affect divorce and custody litigation whenever parties attempt to bind or locate nonresident corporate entities—banks, insurers, employers, benefit administrators, foreign spouses’ companies, or other corporate defendants—for asset restraint, discovery, enforcement of support or property claims, or subpoenas for transactional records.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Johari Powell was injured when a 2009 Hyundai Elantra stalled and was rear-ended; plaintiffs alleged fuel‑pump failure. Hyundam, a South Korean manufacturer that designed and produced the fuel pump, filed a special appearance asserting lack of personal jurisdiction. Hyundam submitted an affidavit from its Managing Director, Jinwook Chang, describing manufacturing, distribution, and corporate practices that located design and manufacture in South Korea and asserted Hyundam did not do business in Texas, had no Texas agents, and did not control where distributors sold parts. Plaintiffs countered with evidence that Hyundam designed the pump for North America, that replacement pumps had been purchased in Texas, that Hyundam maintained an English website accessible in Texas, and national sales figures for the Elantra. The trial court denied Hyundam’s special appearance; the court of appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues Decided
The Court addressed: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in overruling objections to the managing director’s affidavit for lack of personal knowledge and in denying a motion to strike; and (2) whether Texas courts could constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over Hyundam based on the record evidence.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the special‑appearance framework in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a(3) and the Texas long‑arm/personal jurisdiction analysis requiring purposeful availment and, for foreign defendants, “specific targeting” of Texas as reaffirmed in BRP‑Rotax GmbH & Co. KG v. Shaik and earlier authority such as State v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft. For affidavit admissibility and foundation the Court relied on precedent requiring affidavits to be based on personal knowledge—In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Kerlin v. Arias, Ryland Group v. Hood—and the standard of review for evidentiary rulings under Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry‑Helfand. The interlocutory appeal mechanism followed TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(7).
Application
The Court treated the affidavit issue first and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling plaintiffs’ objections. It recognized that an affiant’s job duties and experience can establish the necessary personal knowledge and may supply the foundation for statements about a company’s operations. The Court then proceeded to the jurisdictional question and applied the “specific targeting” principle: the defendant’s contacts must indicate it purposefully availed itself of Texas law and markets. The plaintiffs’ proof—national sales figures, an English website accessible in Texas, and evidence that some replacement pumps were available in Texas—did not establish Hyundam specifically directed activities at Texas. The Court emphasized that purposeful availment cannot be satisfied by the simple possibility that products may eventually enter Texas markets through third‑party distributors or global supply chains absent evidence of deliberate targeting.
Holding
The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to strike the Chang affidavit; the affiant’s role and testimony supplied an adequate foundation and personal‑knowledge basis for the factual assertions in the affidavit. (2) On the merits of personal jurisdiction, the Court held Texas courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Hyundam because plaintiffs failed to show Hyundam specifically targeted Texas. Consequently, the Court reversed the court of appeals and rendered judgment dismissing Hyundam for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Practical Application
Family law litigators should take two practical lessons. First, when seeking to assert jurisdiction over nonresident corporate defendants in family cases—whether insurers, financial institutions, foreign employers, or companies tied to a spouse’s business—build proof of deliberate contacts with Texas: Texas‑directed marketing, Texas contracts, Texas sales channels or agents, Texas‑specific warranties or support, and corporate decisions targeted at Texas. Broad “North America” targeting or global distribution will likely fail unless Texas is singled out. Second, carefully craft and defend affidavits used in special appearances. Opposing counsel will attack foundation and personal knowledge; conversely, you must lay a record that affiants can testify to matters within their duties and that show how they gained knowledge (e.g., corporate records, custodian testimony, deposition excerpts). Preserve discovery to develop direct evidence of targeted contacts and be prepared to demonstrate the chain linking corporate decisions to Texas‑specific conduct.
Checklists
Gather Your Evidence
- Identify and obtain contracts, sales records, and distribution agreements showing Texas as a target market.
- Subpoena transactional records and dealer/distributor sales logs that tie shipments, warranty support, or marketing to Texas.
- Obtain declarations from local dealers, agents, or Texas‑based company representatives verifying targeted activity.
Affidavits and Foundations
- Use affiants with direct corporate responsibility for the subject matter and include specific descriptions of how they acquired the knowledge asserted.
- Include documentary exhibits or cite specific corporate records relied upon in the affidavit; avoid conclusory language that facts are simply “within my personal knowledge.”
- If relying on corporate websites, include archived snapshots or analytics showing targeted Texas content or outreach.
Asserting Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Corporations in Family Cases
- Show purposeful availment: Texas‑specific contracts, service or support directed to Texas residents, or agents/representatives operating within Texas.
- Demonstrate foreseeability is insufficient; link corporate decisions or marketing strategies to Texas as a deliberate market.
- Preserve interlocutory appeal records under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(7) when appropriate.
Defending Against Jurisdictional Claims
- Move for special appearance early and attach affidavits that explain corporate structure, sales channels, and lack of Texas‑targeted conduct.
- Develop deposition testimony to corroborate affidavit foundation and to show absence of Texas‑specific contacts.
- Challenge plaintiffs’ reliance on generalized statistics, website access, or third‑party distributors as insufficient proof of targeting.
Citation
Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd. v. Swacina, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. June 20, 2025).
Full Opinion
Full opinion (Supreme Court of Texas)
Share this content: