Post 5408
Posted on July 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Changan Chu, No. 14-25-00965-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (July 21, 2026) NJM issued an automobile insurance policy in New Jersey to Changan Chu while Chu was a New Jersey resident.
Chu was injured in an auto-pedestrian collision in Harris County, Texas, allegedly caused by an uninsured driver. Chu sued the driver and NJM, seeking a declaration that his UM/UIM coverage was in force and provided $300,000 in limits. NJM filed a special appearance supported by affidavit evidence showing it was a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, had no offices, agents, employees, advertising, registration, or insurance business in Texas, and did not insure any person, property, or risk located in Texas. Chu did not file evidence opposing the special appearance.
A Texas court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only when the Texas long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction complies with due process.
Due process requires minimum contacts with Texas and that jurisdiction comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Minimum contacts turn on purposeful availment: the defendant’s own purposeful contacts with the forum, not unilateral acts of others or merely random, fortuitous, or isolated events.
Specific jurisdiction requires a substantial connection between the defendant’s Texas contacts and the operative facts of the litigation; general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts. Under Rule 120a, the plaintiff must plead jurisdictional allegations, and the defendant may negate jurisdiction factually or legally.
The court rejected Chu’s argument that jurisdiction existed because it was foreseeable that an insured might be injured in Texas. Although foreseeability is relevant, it is not enough by itself. The insurer must have purposefully established contacts with the forum.
Applying Guardian Royal, the court considered whether NJM knew it was responsible for losses arising from a substantial subject of insurance regularly present in Texas and the nature of the policy and coverage.
Whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a question of law.
The requirements of the Texas long-arm statute are satisfied only if the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with federal due-process limitations. While foreseeability is not necessarily determinative of whether the nonresident defendant purposefully established minimum contacts, and it is not an independent component of the minimum-contacts analysis, it is implicit in the test.
Personal jurisdiction may be based on specific contacts, or it may be general.
Specific jurisdiction is established if the defendant’s alleged liability arises from or is related to an activity conducted within the forum state. 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.
The uncontroverted record showed NJM insured a New Jersey resident under a New Jersey policy, did not write Texas policies, and had no Texas business presence. Chu’s Texas accident was therefore not enough to create minimum contacts between NJM and Texas, and the record also did not support general jurisdiction.
The court held that NJM lacked minimum contacts with Texas and that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over NJM. It reversed the order denying NJM’s special appearance and rendered judgment dismissing Chu’s claims against NJM for want of jurisdiction.
Having concluded that the trial court lacks jurisdiction over NJM in this case, we reverse the trial court’s order denying NJM’s special appearance and render judgment against Chu dismissing his claims against NJM for want of jurisdiction.
There was no question that the NJM policy provided underinsured motorist coverage for the Texas accident but since NJM had no contacts with Texas the insurer had no contacts with the state of Texas. The suit belonged in NJ where Mr. Chu will be able to recover the benefits promised by NJM’s policy.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg;
Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.