The Supreme Court of Texas has sharply limited when foreign manufacturers can be sued in the state, ruling that an Austrian aircraft-engine maker cannot be hauled into Texas courts over a crash at a local airport. The opinion reinforces Texas' strict application of the "stream-of-commerce-plus" test and underscores that merely foreseeing a product's eventual arrival in Texas is not enough to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
The Court held that BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG, a company headquartered in Austria, did not purposefully avail itself of the Texas market when one of its engines, designed and manufactured abroad and sold through independent distributors, powered a Piper light aircraft that lost engine power and crashed on takeoff. The crash resulted in catastrophic injuries to passenger Sheema Shaik, witnessed by her husband, Touseef Siddiqui. Both plaintiffs are Texas residents. The trial court denied the defense's motion to dismiss, and the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed.
In its decision, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the Dallas Court of Appeals ruling and rendered judgment dismissing all claims against BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG, holding that Texas courts lack specific personal jurisdiction over the Austrian aircraft-engine manufacturer in litigation arising from a runway crash at a local airport in Addison. BRP-Rotax GmbH&Co., KG v. Shaik, No. 23-0756 (Tex. June 20, 2205).
Background: A Tragic Crash and a Global Supply Chain
Texas residents Sheema Shaik and Touseef Siddiqui sued multiple defendants in Dallas County after a Piper light sport aircraft lost power and crashed during takeoff, causing catastrophic injuries to Shaik. Rotax designed and manufactured the engine in Austria and sold it to a Bahamian distributor, Kodiak Research, Ltd., which resold to a Florida sub-distributor, which then sold to a Texas company that installed the engine. Rotax filed a special appearance under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a, averring that it manufactures exclusively in Austria, has no offices, employees, property, advertising, or direct sales in Texas, and sells only to independent foreign distributors.
Both the trial court and the Dallas Court of Appeals had previously found specific personal jurisdiction under a stream of commerce theory. The Texas Supreme Court granted review and reversed.
The Governing Framework
Specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum and that the claims arise out of or relate to those forum-directed contacts. Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 359-60 (2021). The Texas long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due process in tort cases, which means due process does the real work. LG Chem Am., Inc. v. Morgan, 670 S.W.3d 341, 346047 (Tex. 2023).
Texas has long applied the "stream-of-commerce-plus" approach, which prescribed that placing a product into the stream of commerce does not establish purposeful availment unless additional conduct shows an intent or purpose to serve the Texas market.TV Azteca v. Ruiz, 490 S.W.3d 29, 46 (Tex. 2016). Mere foreseeability that a product may end up in Texas cannot create minimum contacts. What matters is the defendant's own deliberate forum-related conduct, not the unilateral conduct of third parties. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodsen, 444 U.S. 286, 295-97 (1980).
At the same time, the Court has recognized that manufacturers may purposefully avail themselves in Texas indirectly if they can create, control, or employ a distribution system to serve Texas, or if they directly deploy Texas-focused sales and support infrastructure. Luciano v. SprayFoamPolymers.com, LLC, 625 S.W.3d 1, 10-11, 16-17 (Tex. 2021). The touchstone is targeted exploitation of the Texas market. Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 785 (Tex. 2005).
The Holding; No Targeting of Texas, No Jurisdiction
In the case at hand, the Court emphasized that Texas adheres to the U.S. Supreme Court's "stream-of-commerce-plus" test, which requires more than awareness that a product could end up in the forum state. "Stream -of-commerce jurisdiction requires a stream, not a dribble," the Court wrote, concluding that any Texas connection in this case was "fortuitous or accomplished by the unilateral actions of third parties."
The Court rejected the four jurisdictional hooks plaintiffs relied on:
- Distribution agreement: The Rotax-Kodiak agreement permitted distribution across a vast territory, including the United States, but did not direct any Texas-specific marketing or sales. Kodiak was independent, not an agent or alter ego of Rotax, and Texas was only one possible destination of many.
- The Texas Repair Center (Texas Rotax): The Bulverde, Texas repair shop was established and operated by Kodiak, not Rotax. The Court found no evidence Rotax directed, controlled, or even preferred that a service center exist in Texas.
- Rotax website: The English-language website did not allow online engine sales and was not targeted at Texas. The court rejected the argument that providing manuals and contract forms online constituted Texas-directed conduct, calling the plaintiff's reliance on English language "meritless."
- Registration of the Rotax Engines in Texas: Third-party registrations of engines located in Texas did not reflect action by Rotax and could not establish jurisdiction.
The Court distinguished the case from prior Texas and U.S. Supreme Court precedents (Ford, Luciano, Volkswagen) in which manufacturers directly cultivated, controlled, or profited from a state's market.
Key Takeaways
- Texas will only exercise jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers who deliberately cultivate the Texas market- either directly or through controlled distribution.
- A foreign manufacturer is not subject to suit merely because an unaffiliated distributor chooses to place products in Texas.
- English- language websites, product manuals, or passive interactivity will not suffice to stablish purposeful availment.
- Foreseeability remains insufficient- mere awareness that products may end up in Texas cannot create minimum contacts under due process.
Impact on Litigation Against Foreign Product Manufacturers
The ruling reinforces Texas' traditionally narrow approach to specific personal jurisdiction and will likely make it more difficult to sue foreign manufacturers in Texas absent evidence of Texas-targeted marketing, sales, or distribution control.
The decision may be particularly consequential in aviation, automotive, and heavy-equipment product liability cases, where international supply chains often involve multiple layers of distributors and repair networks.
