Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991), the Court held that Texas courts could not properly exercise personal jurisdiction over an English insurer of an English company whose policy covered losses "anywhere in the world the insured and its subsidiary companies did business." 815 S.W.2d at 225.

Although the court determined that the insurer's contacts with Texas were theoretically sufficient to justify personal jurisdiction, the court held that asserting jurisdiction over the insurer would be "unreasonable." Id. at 232.

In support of this position, the Court noted the following facts:

The insurer and the insured were both English companies;

The insured's subrogee, another insurer, was not a Texas company;

"All acts concerning the negotiation, implementation and performance of the policy and endorsements (including the payment of premiums) occurred in England";

Texas's interest in adjudicating the dispute was minimal because the parties involved were "neither Texas consumers nor Texas insureds"; and

The insured's interest in litigating in Texas was minimal, because it could obtain convenient and effective relief by litigating in England. (Id. at 232-33.)