444 U.S. 320 (1980)
On January 13, 1972, two Indiana residents were involved in a single-car accident in Elkhart, Indiana.1 Appellee Savchuk, who was a passenger in the car driven by appellant Rush, was injured.
The car, owned by Rush's father, was insured by appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. under a liability insurance policy issued in Indiana.2 Savchuk moved with his parents to Minnesota in June 1973.3
On May 28, 1974, Savchuk commenced an action against Rush in the Minnesota state courts.4 The complaint alleged negligence and sought $125,000 in damages.5 The prayer was later reduced voluntarily to $50,000, the face amount of the policy.6 As Rush had no contacts with Minnesota that would support in personam jurisdiction, Savchuk attempted to obtain quasi in rem jurisdiction by garnishing State Farm's obligation under the insurance policy to defend and indemnify Rush in connection with such a suit.7 State Farm does business in Minnesota.8 Rush was personally served in Indiana.9
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion for leave to file the supplemental complaint.10 On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision.11 The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the cause for further consideration in light of Shaffer v. Heitner.12 On remand, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the assertion of quasi in rem jurisdiction through garnishment of an insurer's obligation to an insured complied with the due process standards enunciated in Shaffer.13 This appeal followed.14
Whether a State may constitutionally exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over a defendant who has no forum contacts by attaching the contractual obligation of an insurer licensed to do business in the State to defend and indemnify him in connection with the suit?15
In Shaffer v. Heitner the Court held that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the standards set forth in International Shoe and its progeny.16 A State may exercise jurisdiction over an absent defendant only if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.17 In determining whether a particular exercise of state-court jurisdiction is consistent with due process, the inquiry must focus on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.18
No. Rush has never had any contacts with Minnesota.19 The auto accident that is the subject of this action occurred in Indiana and also had no connection to Minnesota.20 The only affiliating circumstance offered to show a relationship among Rush, Minnesota, and this lawsuit is that Rush's insurance company does business in the State.21 The fact that the defendant's insurer does business in the forum State suggests no further contacts between the defendant and the forum, and the record supplies no evidence of any.22 State Farm's decision to do business in Minnesota was completely adventitious as far as Rush was concerned.23
He had no control over that decision.24 It is unlikely that he would have expected that by buying insurance in Indiana he had subjected himself to suit in any State to which a potential future plaintiff might decide to move. In short, it cannot be said that the defendant engaged in any purposeful activity related to the forum that would make the exercise of jurisdiction fair, just, or reasonable merely because his insurer does business there.25 Nor are there significant contacts between the litigation and the forum.26 The insurance policy is not the subject matter of the case, however, nor is it related to the operative facts of the negligence action.27
Reversed.28
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens dissented on the ground that the Minnesota statute authorizing jurisdiction is correctly characterized as the functional equivalent of a so-called direct-action statute.29 The impact of the judgment is against the insurer.30 He believes such a direct-action statute is valid as applied to a suit brought by a forum resident. This is true even if the accident giving rise to the action did not occur in the forum State, so long as it is understood that the forum may exercise no power whatsoever over the individual defendant.31
In this case, although appellant Rush may have a contractual obligation to his insurer to appear in court to testify and generally to cooperate in the defense of the lawsuit, Minnesota law does not compel him to do so through the contempt power or otherwise.32 Moreover, any judgment formally entered against the individual defendant may only be executed against the proceeds of his insurance policy.33 It would violate the Due Process Clause to make any use of such a judgment against that individual.34
He is therefore led to the conclusion that the Federal Constitution does not require the Minnesota courts to dismiss this action.35