Applied Polymers of America v. Wright Waterproofing Co., B-9690
| Citation | 608 S.W.2d 164 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. B-9690,B-9690 |
| Parties | APPLIED POLYMERS OF AMERICA et al., Petitioners, v. WRIGHT WATERPROOFING COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Rex Renger and John L. Burke, Dallas, for petitioners.
E. Eldridge Goins, Jr., Dallas, for respondent.
Wright Waterproofing Company sued Applied Polymers of America, a New Jersey corporation, and Paul Fox as its sales representative in Texas, for breach of implied and express warranties. Applied Polymers filed a special appearance under rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, contesting Texas jurisdiction and moved for dismissal of the suit. The trial court sustained the motion in favor of Applied Polymers and dismissed the suit. The trial court also granted a summary judgment in favor of respondent Fox. The court of civil appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Fox but reversed the special appearance sustained in favor of Applied Polymers and remanded the cause for trial. 602 S.W.2d 67. Both Wright and Applied Polymers filed applications for writ of error in this court.
In its application, Applied Polymers argues that it was not "doing business" in Texas. We agree, however, with the holding of the court of civil appeals that Applied Polymers was "doing business" in Texas under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2031b and had sufficient minimum contacts to subject it to Texas jurisdiction.
In refusing Applied Polymers' and Wright's application for writ of error, no reversible error, our action is not to be interpreted as approving the court of civil appeals language which implies that a sales representative is in every instance the agent of an out-of-state defendant. There was evidence to support the trial court's finding that Fox was an independent contractor. Notwithstanding that finding, there are enough additional facts contained in the record and stated in the court of civil appeals opinion to support its holding that Applied Polymers was "doing business" in Texas.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Middleton v. Kawasaki Steel Corp.
...evidence." Wright Waterproofing Co. v. Applied Polymers, 602 S.W.2d 67, 70 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 608 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.1980). The appellate court then proceeded to review the other undisputed evidence in the record and reversed the trial court. The court of civ......
-
Magnolia Gas Co v. Knight Equip. & MFG.
...in Texas); Wright Waterproofing Co. v. Applied Polymers of Am., 602 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Tex. Civ. App.-- Dallas 1980), writ ref'd n.r.e., 608 S.W.2d 164 (corporation availed itself of Texas law by coming to state to negotiate sale of its product); Pizza Inn, Inc. v. Lumar, 513 S.W.2d 251, 254 (T......
-
Glas v. Adame
...and agents may do similar things, every sales representative is not automatically an agent. See Applied Polymers of America v. Wright Waterproofing Co., 608 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Tex.1980). For example, in Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 372 (5th Cir.1987), Beech had a network of T......
-
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Walker County Agency, Inc.
...Christi 1982, no writ); Wright Waterproofing Co. v. Applied Polymers, 602 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1980), writ ref'd, 608 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.1980). An insurer is bound by the acts of its agent in issuing a binder containing misrepresentations and is liable for actual damages if the agen......