Don’t Mess with Texas…& Other Issues of Jurisdiction in Delaware

Good to be back in the saddle.  The Detour & Frolic’s been too silent for too long, so look for us to be shaking things up a bit going forward.  Frankly, I am tired of y’all asking me if you have fallen off Circle of Friends . . . not likely . . .just no recent posts.  And look for a post about a fall off a toilet seat real soon.  Gotta keep the momentum going . . . .

So a big thank you to Nathan Gin of Elzufon, Austin, & Mondell, a man after God’s own heart (and mine as well), who has a recent appellate court victory on the issue of jurisdiction and specifically 19 Del. Code Section 2303(a).  The case in question is Steven Burton v. PLS Construction,  2015 WL 4154116 (Del. Super. Ct. July 6, 2015) (Cooch, R.J.).  And who better to explain Nathan’s case than Nathan?

This case centered around Section 2303(a)(2) regarding whether a contract of hire was made in Delaware for employment not principally localized in any state.  The claimant lived in Delaware and traveled around the country installing liners for oil tanks.  At the time of the alleged work accident, he was working in Texas.  The employer is incorporated and located in Texas.

It was the claimant’s contention that the contract of hire was made in Delaware because he: (1) interviewed for the position by a regional manager in Delaware; (2) he was advised he was hired in Delaware; and (2) he completed the new hire paperwork in Delaware. 

The Court affirmed the Board’s decision which found that the contract of hire was not made in Delaware.  We were able to establish that the initial application had to be sent by the claimant to Texas for processing and that the ultimate authority and the decision to hire the claimant came from the owner of the company located in Texas. While the regional manager, who also lived in Delaware, could make a recommendation to hire the claimant, the ultimate hiring decision was made in Texas.  All of the claimant’s job assignments, time sheets, expense sheets, and job updates were processed from Texas.  Notably, the Court noted that the claimant could have signed the job application in any state.  The fact that he completed the job application in Delaware did not establish that a contract of hire was made in Delaware.

The owner of the company flew in from Texas to testify about all of the details of the employment contract.  Ultimately, we were able to marshal enough facts to carry the day.

This case lays to rest a notion that used to crop up back in the early days of my own practice (when many of y’all were still in grade school) that answering the phone in Delaware to accept a job offer which originated from elsewhere would confer Delaware jurisdiction as a “contract of hire” made in The First State . . .  that was back before email and text messaging and social media and all that other good stuff that now drives business practice.

So when in doubt on the whole jurisdictional thing, refer back to this case . . .or just ask Nathan.

Irreverently yours,

Cassandra Roberts