Benchmark Electronics, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corporation
343 F. 3d 719 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A narrow contractual choice-of-law clause that governs only the construction and interpretation of the agreement does not extend to non-contractual tort claims. For such tort claims, courts must apply the law of the state with the 'most significant relationship' to the dispute.
Facts:
- J.M. Huber Corporation (Huber), a New Jersey company, decided to sell its subsidiary, AVEX, after it incurred heavy operating losses in 1997 and 1998.
- In April 1999, a Huber representative met with representatives of Benchmark Electronics, Inc. (Benchmark), a Texas corporation, in Texas to promote the sale of AVEX.
- In May 1999, after signing a confidentiality agreement, Huber sent Benchmark a 'Confidential Descriptive Memorandum' in Texas that promoted AVEX's profitability and customer relationships.
- From June to August 1999, Huber representatives made representations to Benchmark in Texas via telephone regarding AVEX's renewed profitability, and Benchmark reviewed AVEX's information in data rooms located in New York.
- Benchmark and Huber negotiated and executed a Stock Purchase Agreement for the sale of AVEX, which included specific representations and warranties by Huber as well as a disclaimer of all other representations.
- The Stock Purchase Agreement contained a choice-of-law clause selecting New York law to govern and construe the agreement.
- After the sale closed in New York in August 1999, Benchmark alleged it discovered that several of AVEX's key customers had reduced or ended their business before the sale, and that AVEX had suffered significant losses, contrary to Huber's representations.
Procedural Posture:
- Benchmark Electronics, Inc. sued J.M. Huber Corporation in federal district court, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
- The district court ordered mediation, which failed.
- Huber filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to apply New York law.
- Benchmark filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
- The district court treated Huber’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment, granted it, and denied Benchmark’s motion.
- The district court applied New York law to all of Benchmark's claims and entered judgment for Huber.
- Benchmark, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contractual choice-of-law provision stating that the 'Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of New York' also govern non-contractual tort claims, such as fraud and negligent misrepresentation, arising from the transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No. A narrow choice-of-law provision that applies only to the governance and construction of a contract does not encompass tort claims arising from the transaction. Texas law gives effect to choice-of-law clauses for contract construction, but this clause is narrow because it only states the 'Agreement shall be governed by' New York law. Citing Texas Supreme Court precedent in Stier v. Reading & Bates Corp., such language applies only to the interpretation and enforcement of the contract itself, not to all disputes between the parties. Therefore, for Benchmark's tort claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, Texas choice-of-law rules require applying the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Texas has the most significant relationship because the misrepresentations were received by Benchmark in Texas, the financial injury was sustained by Benchmark in Texas, and Benchmark is a Texas corporation. New York's connections were 'adventitious,' primarily serving as the location for Huber's professional advisors and the closing. Consequently, Texas law governs the tort claims, while New York law governs the breach of contract claims.
Concurring - Reavley, J.
Judge Reavley concurred in the judgment only, without a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between narrow and broad choice-of-law clauses under Texas law. It establishes that for a choice-of-law provision to govern tort claims, it must contain broad language explicitly covering all disputes 'arising out of or relating to' the agreement, not just its interpretation. This holding serves as a crucial drafting lesson for transactional attorneys, emphasizing that without such explicit language, parties may find their disputes bifurcated, with contract claims governed by one state's law and related tort claims by another. This outcome can significantly complicate litigation by requiring courts and litigants to navigate two different bodies of substantive law in a single case.
