HOUSTON — A California attorney had a denial of his special appearance reversed on appeal, dismissing him from an insurance company’s lawsuit alleging fraud.
The First Court of appeals rendered its decision on Aug. 13, dismissing Homeport Insurance Company’s claims against attorney Daniel Weltin for lack of jurisdiction.
This appeal stems from a suit brought by Homeport in an effort to claw back insurance proceeds paid to one of the defendants in the case, Veronica Gray-McRae, in settlement of a Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claim.
According to the opinion, Homeport learned information that led it to believe it had been defrauded, so it appealed to undo the settlement and then brought a separate suit in California state court against Gray-McRae and Weltin to recoup the insurance payments.
After Gray-McRae moved to Texas, Homeport brought this suit against her and, after Weltin appeared as additional defense counsel, it named him as a defendant.
Court records show Weltin filed a special appearance and a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The TCPA motion was denied by operation of law, and the trial court later signed an order denying Weltin’s special appearance.
Weltin represented Gray-McRae in a federal administrative claim filed in California seeking benefits under the LHWCA following the on-the-job injury and eventual death of her partner, Anthony McRae, in 2020.
In 2022, Gray-McRae settled her claim with McRae’s former employer and its insurer, Homeport. The settlement was approved by an administrative law judge and included an award of $15,000 in attorney’s fees to the Law Offices of Daniel Weltin, a California law firm.
“After learning that McRae had filed for divorce from Veronica in 2009 and a default judgment of divorce was on file in Alameda County, California, Homeport filed a motion in the administrative proceeding to set aside the settlement and sued Veronica and Weltin in California state court to undo the settlement based on fraud and other theories,” the opinion states.
Homeport argued that Weltin’s Texas law license and his representation of Gray-McRae in the Texas case support general jurisdiction, but justices found it was not enough to support a finding of general jurisdiction.
“Weltin’s activities in the trial court on behalf of his clients do not support Homeport’s assertion of general jurisdiction,” the opinion states. “We reverse the trial court’s order denying Weltin’s special appearance and render judgment dismissing the claims against Weltin for lack of jurisdiction.”
Appeals case No. 01-25-00155-CV
