PENCE SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES, APPELLANT,

v.

MARLENE R. TURK, MIDAS REALTY CORP., MERLE CLARK BLOCKER, KAREN METZGER, HOWARD LICHTERMAN, DIANA HALL AND MIDAS INTERNATIONAL, APPELLEES

GARRETT, Judge.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Appellees added appellant as a defendant in a lawsuit for damages caused by an explosion of a propane system in a Midas Muffler Shop.

Appellant, an Illinois corporation, is an architectural firm. It had no Florida office. It did no Florida advertising. It had no Florida business contacts. It owned no Florida property.

In 1979, appellant entered into a contract with Midas Realty Corporation to provide plans for different types of muffler shops with natural gas supply systems. All the design work was done in Illinois. The plans were working drawings to be modified by other architects to meet local building codes. Appellant’s fee did not depend on buildings being built in Florida. Delivery of the plans concluded appellant’s work.

A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if there are minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), World-Wide Volkswagen Corporation v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 497-98 (1980). The mere likelihood that a product will find its way into the forum state is not the criteria for determining minimum contacts. The criteria is conduct and connection with the forum state which causes a defendant to reasonably anticipate being haled into the forum state’s court. World-Wide, 444 U.S. at 296-97, 100 S.Ct. at 566-67, 62 L.Ed.2d at 500-01. Benefitting financially from a collateral relation to the forum state will not support jurisdiction if the benefits do not stem from constitutionally acknowledged contacts. Id. at 299, 100 S.Ct. at 568, 62 L.Ed.2d at 502.

We reverse. Appellee failed to establish appellant had minimum contacts with Florida. Appellant did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Florida. Id. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567, 62 L.Ed.2d at 501 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1298 (1958). Appellant merely benefitted financially from a source collateral to later activities in this state.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.

ANSTEAD, J., concurs.

STONE, J., dissents with opinion.

STONE, Judge,

dissenting.

There was evidence that the plans were designed knowingly as a prototype to be used by Midas in numerous states throughout the country, and that Pence knew they would be used in Florida. The Midas contract was a substantial one for Pence.

In my judgment it does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to require appellant to litigate here. Nor can I conclude that the trial court, by applying and balancing the various appropriate factors, did not have the discretion to conclude that they were met in this case. Cf. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); Ford Motor Co. v. Atwood Vacuum Machine Co., 392 So. 2d 1305 (Fla.1981); Louis Winer Co. v. San Francisco Mercantile Co., 501 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Rice Growers Association of California v. First National Bank of Minneapolis, 167 Cal.App.3d 559, 214 Cal.Rptr. 468 (1985). This defendant’s involvement with Florida, unlike that in World-Wide Volkswagen, was not merely fortuitous.