Johari Powell was seriously injured when her 2009 Hyundai Elantra stalled in the center lane of traffic and was rear-ended, and she alleges the car stalled because its fuel pump failed.¹ The pump was designed and manufactured in South Korea by Hyundam Industrial Company, Ltd., which designed it under Hyundai Motor Company's specifications and subject to its approval.² Hyundam sold ninety-nine percent of its fuel pumps to Donghee Industries, a South Korean company that incorporated them into fuel systems it sold to Hyundai in South Korea, and the other one percent to Hyundai Mobis, a South Korean company that distributes service parts to Hyundai dealers globally, including in Texas, over which Hyundam has no control.³ According to the affidavit of Hyundam's Managing Director of the Technical R&D Center, Jinwook Chang, Hyundam has never done or sought to do business in Texas, has no place of business, employees, or agents here, and does not advertise, market, export, or sell products here.⁴

Paul Swacina, suing as Powell's successor guardian and as next friend of her minor children, sued multiple defendants in Texas state court, and Hyundam filed a special appearance under Rule 120a supported by Chang's affidavit.¹ Swacina responded that Hyundam designed the pump for the North American region and knew it was sold in Texas, that a replacement Hyundam pump was bought at a Texas Hyundai dealership, that Hyundam has an English-language website, and that Hyundai sold over 97,000 Elantras in the United States in 2009, and he objected that Chang's affidavit was not based on personal knowledge.² The trial court overruled the objection and denied the special appearance, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Hyundam purposefully availed itself of Texas by designing its pumps for the North American region.³ The Court decided the case per curiam on June 20, 2025, without oral argument.⁴

Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a special appearance; decided per curiam without oral argument under Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1.⁵

Hyundam presents three issues: whether the court of appeals eliminated purposeful availment and the "plus" in stream-of-commerce-plus analysis by holding that a product made to general North American specifications supports jurisdiction; whether it misread Volkswagen so as to disregard the Court's adherence to Nicastro and the forum-by-forum requirement; and whether it erred in finding jurisdiction where purposeful acts were not directed to Texas.¹ Swacina adds an alternative ground for affirmance, that the trial court should have excluded Chang's affidavit, which the Court addressed first.²

Appellate courts review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.¹ For specific personal jurisdiction, the Court considers only the defendant's contacts with the forum, not the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.²

Whether Hyundam purposefully availed itself of Texas.

Petitioner (Hyundam): The court of appeals purports to remove the underpinnings of personal jurisdiction by subjecting nonresident manufacturers to jurisdiction without evidence of specific conduct directed at Texas, and it misread Volkswagen, which held that a defendant that directed activity to every state is not excused for not directing itself to any particular state.¹ In reply it argues that Swacina's theory would subject almost any foreign manufacturer to jurisdiction, because nearly all products are made to some regional standard, and that unlike the cases Swacina cites there is no distribution scheme, since Hyundam sold only to Donghee in South Korea.²

Respondents (Swacina): Hyundam's thesis that a manufacturer can defeat jurisdiction in one forum by carrying out the same activities in every other forum was rejected in Volkswagen; Hyundam designed and manufactured more than 100,000 fuel pumps knowing they would be sold throughout the United States, including Texas, and knowingly sold in volume to large distributors who sell in Texas, so it did not merely place its products fortuitously in the stream of commerce.³ They also argue that Chang's affidavit lacked personal knowledge.⁴

Hyundam argued that the court of appeals' reading of Volkswagen upends settled law by allowing jurisdiction over nonresident manufacturers without evidence of conduct directed to the forum state.¹ Swacina responded that Volkswagen already rejected Hyundam's central thesis.²

• Texas Association of Defense Counsel filed an amicus brief on March 6, 2025.

Holding

There is no evidence that Hyundam targeted Texas, so it did not purposefully avail itself of the Texas market and Texas courts lack specific personal jurisdiction over it; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Swacina's personal-knowledge objection to the affidavit.¹

Reasoning

The affidavit. A special-appearance affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, and an affiant's job responsibilities can supply it; Chang detailed his roles over seventeen years, the knowledge he gained in each, and the documents he reviewed, which laid a foundation beyond a conclusory statement, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion.² The Court held that Swacina's raising this ground in his merits brief without a cross-petition was permissible because it is an alternative ground to affirm.³

Purposeful availment. Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and a claim that arises out of or relates to the forum contacts, and purposeful availment requires some "additional conduct" beyond placing a product in the stream of commerce showing intent to serve the Texas market; foreseeability that a product will end up in Texas is not enough, and the Court reaffirmed this the same day in BRP-Rotax.⁴ Designing the pump for North America, a region of the fifty states and twenty-two other countries, makes arrival in Texas foreseeable but does not target Texas, as in BRP-Rotax and Nicastro.⁵ The court of appeals misread Volkswagen, whose defendants had initiated recall and service campaigns in Texas and so targeted it, and which said only that a defendant need not target Texas in some unique way after concluding that it targeted Texas at all.⁶ The Court did not require that a manufacturer design products specifically for Texas, only some conduct targeting Texas.⁷

The other evidence. A replacement pump bought at a Texas Hyundai dealership does not show targeting, because Hyundam sold less than one percent of its pumps to Mobis, had no control over where Mobis sold them, and had no distribution agreement in the United States.⁸ An English-language website, without more, does not target Texas, and Hyundai's Elantra sales are unilateral third-party activity that the Court does not consider.⁹

Disposition

Without hearing oral argument, the Court granted the petition for review, reversed the court of appeals' judgment, and rendered judgment dismissing the case against Hyundam.¹⁰

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Boyd, Busby, Devine, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.