Opinion ID: 894827
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantial Connection to Operative Facts

Text: As we have said, the but-for relatedness test is too broad and conceptually unlimited in scope, the substantive-relevance/proximate-cause test poses too narrow an inquiry, and the sliding-scale analysis conflates the fundamental distinction between general and specific jurisdiction that is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. In light of these concerns, some courts have applied alternative approaches, requiring that a cause of action lie in the wake of the [defendant's] commercial activities in the forum, Deluxe Ice Cream Co. v. R.C.H. Tool Corp., 726 F.2d 1209, 1215-16 (7th Cir.1984), or that the forum contacts be critical steps in the chain of events that led to the [injury], In re Oil Spill by Amoco Cadiz, 699 F.2d 909, 915-16 (7th Cir.1983). The Sixth Circuit has generally applied a test that falls somewhere between proximate cause and but-for, requiring a substantial connection between the defendant's contacts and the plaintiff's claim to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction. See WEDGE Group, Inc., 882 F.2d at 1091 (6th Cir.1989); Southern Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 384 n. 27 (6th Cir.1968). In WEDGE Group, Inc., the court explained that the specific jurisdiction's relatedness element does not require that the cause of action formally `arise from' defendant's contacts with the forum [but instead requires] that the cause of action, of whatever type, have a substantial connection with the defendant's in-state activities. WEDGE Group Inc., 882 F.2d at 1091 (emphasis in original) (quoting Southern Mach. Co., 401 F.2d at 384 n. 27). The Supreme Court has yet to explicate the degree of relatedness necessary to support specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. However, in Rush v. Savchuk, the Court did consider the relation between forum contacts and the litigation in a case filed in Minnesota for personal injuries arising from an Indiana automobile accident. 444 U.S. 320, 324, 100 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980). The plaintiff claimed jurisdiction was proper in Minnesota because the defendant's insurance company did business there, and the insurer's obligation to defend and indemnify its insured in the accident litigation was inevitably the focus that would determine the victim's rights and obligations. Id. at 327-28, 100 S.Ct. 571. Holding that the insurance company's contacts could not be imputed to the defendant for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction, the Court concluded there were not significant contacts between the litigation and the forum because the insurance policy is not the subject matter of the case . . . nor is it related to the operative facts of the negligence action. Id. at 329, 100 S.Ct. 571. The Court concluded that the insurance contract pertained only to the conduct and not the substance [] of the litigation, and therefore the forum's jurisdiction was not affected. Id. Our limited jurisprudence similarly suggests a middle ground, more flexible than substantive relevance but more structured than but-for relatedness, in assessing the strength of the necessary connection between the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 229-33. In Guardian Royal, we spoke in terms of a substantial connection between the nonresident defendant and Texas arising from purposeful action or conduct directed here. Id. at 226 (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 n. 18, 105 S.Ct. 2174) (stating [s]o long as it creates a `substantial connection' with the forum, even a single act can support jurisdiction); see also Shell Compania Argentina de Petroleo, S.A. v. Reef Exploration, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 830, 837 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) (stating contacts must have a `substantial connection' that results in the alleged injuries) (citing Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 226). Considering our own jurisprudence and the Supreme Court's analysis in Rush, we believe that for a nonresident defendant's forum contacts to support an exercise of specific jurisdiction, there must be a substantial connection between those contacts and the operative facts of the litigation. See Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 229-33; Rush, 444 U.S. at 329, 100 S.Ct. 571.