## Facts

- Moki Mac River Expeditions, a Utah-based river-rafting outfitter operating trips in Arizona and Utah, had no offices, agents, or property in Texas but marketed to Texas residents and obtained customers from Texas.
- After a Texas resident inquired about a Grand Canyon trip, Moki Mac added her to a mailing list and sent brochures into Texas describing trips, pricing, and schedules; the brochures were shared with other Texans, including the Drugg family.
- Betsy Drugg reviewed the mailed materials and accessed Moki Mac’s website from Texas; the family communicated with Moki Mac from Texas regarding participation.
- Moki Mac mailed a confirmation letter and an acknowledgment-of-risk and release form to the Druggs’ Texas home; Andy Drugg and his mother signed and returned the documents from Texas as a condition of participation.
- During a June 2001 Grand Canyon trip in Arizona, guides led the group on a side hike; Andy fell approximately fifty-five feet at a boulder/narrow-ledge area and died.
- The Druggs sued in Texas for wrongful death, alleging negligent supervision and safety practices and asserting that Moki Mac’s materials misrepresented trip safety and precautions.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Moki Mac based on its Texas-directed marketing and pre-trip communications when the alleged negligent conduct and injury occurred in Arizona.
2. Whether the wrongful-death claim “arose from or related to” Moki Mac’s Texas contacts with a sufficient connection to satisfy due process.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas held Texas courts lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Moki Mac.
- The court found purposeful availment satisfied because Moki Mac intentionally solicited Texas business, mailed marketing materials into Texas, and sent contract documents to Texas for execution.
- The court nevertheless concluded the nexus requirement for specific jurisdiction was not met because the operative facts concerned alleged negligence by guides and trail conditions in Arizona.
- The court reversed the judgment upholding the denial of Moki Mac’s special appearance and remanded for consideration of general jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Specific jurisdiction requires (1) minimum contacts through purposeful availment and (2) a claim that arises from or relates to those forum contacts in a way consistent with due process.
- For specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between the defendant’s forum contacts and the operative facts on which liability depends; a mere “but-for” relationship is insufficient.
- In tort cases, forum advertising, solicitation, and contract formation that lead to out-of-state travel generally do not establish specific jurisdiction when the alleged wrongful acts and injury occur entirely outside the forum.
- Allegations of in-forum misrepresentations support specific jurisdiction only when the misrepresentation itself is a substantial operative fact of the asserted cause of action, rather than collateral background to an out-of-state negligence claim.

## Conclusion

Texas could not exercise specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state rafting outfitter whose Texas marketing and contracting contacts did not have a substantial connection to the operative negligence facts and fatal injury that occurred in Arizona; the case was remanded for consideration of general jurisdiction.


Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. 2007)