Products Liability Law Reporter

A Texas appellate court held that LG Chem America, Inc., and LG Chem, Ltd., were subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas for claims arising from a consumer’s exploding lithium-ion battery.

Justin Wilson allegedly was injured after the lithium-ion battery, model number 18650, exploded suddenly and caught fire in his pants pocket. He sued LG Chem America, Inc., and LG Chem, Ltd., alleging claims for products liability. The defendants filed special appearances to challenge the trial court’s personal jurisdiction. The defense argued, among other things, that they were not incorporated or headquartered in Texas and therefore were not subject to general jurisdiction there. The defense also refuted specific jurisdiction on the basis that LG Chem does not design or manufacture 18650 lithium-ion cells for sales to individual consumers as standalone batteries. The plaintiff countered that the defense targeted the Texas market with its battery sales and that he was injured by a battery purchased from a retailer in Texas. The trial court denied the defendants’ special appearances.

Affirming the trial court’s ruling, the intermediate appellate court found that Texas courts may assert in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident where the Texas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction and this is consistent with federal and state constitutional due process guarantees. Citing case law, the court added that the state’s long-arm statute authorizes its courts to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who does business in the state. Moreover, the court said that the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with federal and state due process when the nonresident has minimum contacts with the forum state and the assertion of jurisdiction complies with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Here, the court found, the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing business in Texas by selling, shipping, and distributing model 18650 batteries to Texas manufacturers and allegedly others, and have enjoyed the benefits and protections of Texas law. Thus, the court said that the defendants’ due process rights are not violated by the Texas trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction over them.

Citation: LG Chem Am., Inc. v. Wilson, 2023 WL 4733142 (Tex. App. July 25, 2023).

Plaintiff counsel: Christopher Mahfouz, Houston.

Comment: See also LG Chem v. Hernandez, 2023 WL 4496767 (Tex. App. July 13, 2023). There, Texas resident Tashia Hernandez sued LG Chem, Ltd., LG Chem America, Inc., and others, alleging she was injured when an 18650 lithium-ion battery that she purchased in a Texas retail store exploded in her purse. The defendants each filed a special appearance to challenge the trial court’s personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the special appearances. Affirming, the appellate court found that there is sufficient evidence to establish minimum contacts with Texas and that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred in Texas. The court also found that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants is the most efficient resolution of the controversies at issue in the case. The plaintiff was represented by AAJ member Angela J. Nehmens, San Francisco; AAJ member A. Craig Eiland, Galveston, Texas; and AAJ member Bret Stanley, Houston.

Additionally, see Samsung Electronics Am., Inc. v. Brewer, 2023 WL 4284619 (Ga. Ct. App. June 30, 2023). In this vape pen battery fire lawsuit, an appellate court held that a trial court had improperly shifted the burden of proof from Samsung to the plaintiff by construing an incomplete record against him rather than Samsung. The court thus vacated an order granting Samsung’s motion to set aside a default judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of Samsung’s motion under the proper legal standard. The plaintiff was represented by AAJ member William Hunter, Patrick O’Connor, AAJ member George Major Jr., and Irving Drought III, all of Savannah, Ga.; and AAJ member Michael Terry, Atlanta.