With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". during the relevant time period amounted to just 0.236% of its total annual sales, they are de minimis and are insufficient to support an exercise Florida’s jurisdiction. In the instant case, A & V and Quem acted as brokers for Vos’ sale of chemicals to buyers in South America and the Caribbean. Vos did not ship a single ounce of chemicals into Florida, or through any of Florida’s ports. In TRW, strikingly similar percentages were involved; however, in that case, the defendants shipped actual goods to addresses in this state. Therefore, the connection between Vos and Florida is even more attenuated than the connection at issue in TRW, which lends further support to this Court’s conclusion. Finally, we address the evidence found by the trial court to b So.2d 657, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Because the plaintiffs’ action for

A: holding that 155 trips to texas by foreign corporation personnel over a tenyear period did not support general jurisdiction because evidence did not establish a general business presence
B: holding that defendants bank account and open line of credit in florida utilized to transfer money in international commerce was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 481932 florida statutes where defendant operated its business in honduras had no employees or agents in florida and did not advertise or solicit business in florida
C: holding that the maintenance of a florida bank account even if used to collect premiums is too tenuous a contact to support an assertion of general jurisdiction over a foreign insurer
D: holding assignee could collect debt on stated account
C.