## Facts

- Amy Fields bought “Masterjack Drain Opener” from Klatt Hardware & Lumber, Inc., a Texas retailer.
- When Fields opened the product’s flexible container, she allegedly suffered second- and third-degree chemical burns.
- Fields sued Klatt (a nonmanufacturing seller) and Masterjack Services, Inc. (the Colorado manufacturer), alleging a defective product.
- Masterjack had no regular Texas place of business and no designated Texas agent for service; it was served in Colorado and through the Texas Secretary of State but did not answer or appear by the time Klatt sought summary judgment.
- Klatt moved for traditional summary judgment under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.003, asserting nonmanufacturing-seller immunity because the manufacturer was subject to Texas jurisdiction.
- Evidence showed Masterjack’s sales representatives called into Texas and personally visited Klatt’s Texas store to solicit business and distribute product for Texas sales.
- The trial court severed and abated claims involving Masterjack, granted summary judgment for Klatt, and ordered Fields take nothing from Klatt.

## Issues

1. Whether § 82.003(a)(7)(B) permitted Fields to pursue a nonmanufacturing seller on the theory that the manufacturer was not subject to Texas jurisdiction, given the manufacturer’s failure to answer or appear.
2. Whether Klatt’s summary-judgment evidence conclusively established minimum contacts supporting specific personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer, entitling Klatt to immunity as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Klatt.
- Masterjack’s failure to answer triggered § 82.003’s presumption that it was not subject to jurisdiction, but the seller could defeat that presumption by showing Texas could exercise personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer.
- Klatt’s evidence established Masterjack purposefully directed sales efforts into Texas (calls and in-person solicitation) to place the product in the Texas market through a Texas retailer.
- Because the alleged injury arose from the Texas distribution relationship Masterjack created, Texas had specific personal jurisdiction over Masterjack.
- With the manufacturer subject to jurisdiction, Fields could not use § 82.003(a)(7)(B) to avoid seller immunity; Klatt was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 82.003, a nonmanufacturing seller is generally not liable for harm caused by an allegedly defective product unless a statutory exception applies.
- Section 82.003(a)(7)(B) permits suit against a nonmanufacturing seller if the manufacturer is not subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
- When a manufacturer fails to answer or appear, § 82.003 creates a conclusive presumption that the manufacturer is not subject to jurisdiction unless the seller can secure personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer.
- Specific personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant purposefully establishes minimum contacts with Texas and the claim arises from or relates to those contacts, consistent with due process and fair play.

## Conclusion

Because the manufacturer’s sales and solicitation activities directed into Texas created minimum contacts tied to the product sale and alleged injury, Texas courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer; therefore, the “manufacturer not subject to jurisdiction” exception did not apply and the retailer was immune as a nonmanufacturing seller under § 82.003.


Fields v. Klatt Hardware & Lumber, Inc., 374 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)