Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—JURISDICTION—Tex. App.: Jurisdiction over Chinese tire maker exists in rollover accident action, (Feb 5, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

The manufacturer was subject to specific personal jurisdiction under the stream-of-commerce-plus test.

In an action brought against several nonresident tire suppliers for personal injuries and wrongful death arising from a rollover accident due to a tire’s tread separation, a Texas state appellate court affirmed the denial of a Chinese manufacturer’s special appearance. The court found that although the tire at issue was sold through intermediaries and the manufacturer lacked a physical presence in Texas, the maker purposefully availed itself of Texas through a distribution system it created or employed. In addition, the court found the claims arose out of or related to those Texas contacts (Sailun Group Co., Ltd. v. Spradley et al., No. 12-25-00102-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 30, 2026)).

Background. In July 2023, six Texas residents were traveling in a van on a Texas highway when the tread of the left rear tire separated, causing the driver to lose control and the vehicle to roll over. One passenger was killed while others were severely injured. The tire was a Terramax HLT manufactured by Sailun Group Co., Ltd. (Sailun), a Chinese company. The injured passengers and the deceased’s estate (claimants) sued the driver; the manufacturer; Sailun Tire Americas (STA), a Canadian company that marketed Sailun’s tires and Sailun’s wholly owned subsidiary; TBC Corporation (TBC), a Florida company that distributed and sold the tire pursuant to an agreement with STA; and TBC Brands, LLC (TBC Brands), which imported and distributed the tires. The complaint asserted claims for strict products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, wrongful death, and survival. Sailun filed a special appearance, asserting that Texas courts lacked personal jurisdiction over it since it was a foreign manufacturer with no physical presence or direct activities in Texas. A trial court denied the special appearance, and Sailun appealed.

Parties’ contentions. The claimants pleaded that the manufacturer was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas because it (1) was engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, marketing, distributing, and selling tires for vehicles in the U.S. and Texas; (2) targeted Texas through ad campaigns and marketing; (3) sold tires in Texas through its network of distributors and dealers; (4) placed the product into the stream of commerce via its distribution network with the intent that the tire would be sold and used in Texas; and (5) this sale and use caused the catastrophic injuries and death in question. Sailun responded that they were incorrectly imputing the actions of STA, TBC, and TBC Brands to Sailun, especially since (1) TBC did not exclusively sell Sailun tires; (2) Sailun did not control TBC’s marketing; (3) Sailun was not involved with the website TBC used to market its tires; and (4) STA was not proven to be its alter ego. The manufacturer’s business development manager submitted a declaration that Sailun was incorporated in and had its principal place of business in China. It did not have any offices, property, bank accounts, employees, subsidiaries, or facilities in Texas. It did not directly market the tire at issue in Texas and never made a direct sale of the tire to a Texas consumer.

Legal standard. Texas courts may exercise specific jurisdiction when a nonresident defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas and the plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to those contacts per Hyundam Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Swacina, 716 S.W.3d 167, 172 (Tex. 2025). Under the stream-of-commerce-plus test, merely placing a product into the stream of commerce is not enough; there must be additional conduct showing an intent to serve the Texas market, such as creating, controlling, or employing the distribution system that brings the product into the state per BRP-Rotax GMBH & Co. KG v. Shaik, 716 S.W.3d 98, 105 (Tex. 2025).

Purposeful availment. Sailun argued that it did not purposefully avail itself of the forum because it was entirely disconnected from the activities of third-parties, STA and TBC, who imported its product into the U.S., STA and TBC aimed their activities at the U.S. generally without targeting Texas, and a third-party distributor accepted possession of its products outside Texas and had sole discretion regarding where the products would be shipped. The court noted that the manufacturer’s wholly owned subsidiary, STA, was the importer of record on all shipments of Sailun passenger tires into the U.S. The manufacturer designated STA to collect federally-mandated tire registration information on its behalf, STA provided tire registration forms to Texas dealers and distributors, the website on which STA marketed the tires included a feature to help locate Sailun tire dealers in Texas, and the website also recommended Sailun tires for a summer road trip to the Bluebonnet Trail in Texas.

STA also highlighted Sailun tires at a ride-and-drive event in Texas and employed a regional sales manager whose territory included Texas. An agreement between STA and TBC required the former to extend Sailun’s warranties, ensure compliance with federal safety regulations, and coordinate surveillance testing at Sailun’s factories, presupposing Sailun’s involvement and cooperation. The manufacturer sometimes supplied tires directly to TBC. Hence, the court concluded that Sailun indirectly established contacts with Texas by creating and/or employing the distribution system that brought its products to Texas; Sailun’s contacts were purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated; and it sought to profit by availing itself of Texas. Thus, the trial court correctly found that it purposefully availed itself of the forum pursuant to the stream-of-commerce-plus test.

Relatedness. This element focuses on the relationship between the manufacturer, forum, and the operative facts of the litigation. The claimants had brought a “products liability action,” i.e., an action “against a manufacturer... for recovery of damages arising out of personal injury, death…allegedly caused by a defective product. Sailun served a market for its product in Texas, the allegedly defective tire malfunctioned in Texas, the accident occurred in Texas, and caused injuries to six Texas residents. Under controlling precedent, a strict causal link between the defendant’s forum contacts and the specific product sale is not required. It is sufficient that the manufacturer served a market for the product in Texas and the product failed there. Thus, the relatedness requirement was also satisfied and the trial court properly exercised specific jurisdiction over Sailun.

The case is No. 12-25-00102-CV.

Judge: Worthen, J.

Attorneys: Jennifer G. Martin (Wilson Elser) for Sailun Group Co., Ltd. Kyle Farrar (Vinson & Elkins LLP) for Jessica Spradley.

Companies: Sailun Group Co., Ltd.

Cases: CourtDecisions MotorEquipmentNews JurisdictionNews TexasNews