of the Due Process Clause and may be enforced only to the extent consistent with those principles. IV Applying the Due Process Clause’s jurisdictional principles to these facts does not present a difficult issue. The insurance contracts at issue were entered in Germany between German parties under German law. They addressed German events. Any breach of the contracts occurred in Germany. The parties to the contracts had no connection with Florida. The events governed by the contracts had no connection with Florida. The grounds for exercising jurisdiction over these parties or these events in Florida are exactly none. Many cases recognize a state’s lack of jurisdiction over such extra-territorial contracts. See, e.g., Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, 50 S.Ct. 338, 74 L.Ed. 926 (1930) (<HOLDING>); Francosteel Corp. v. M/V Charm, 19 F.3d 624
holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding that texas district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction over paternity proceeding regarding minor born in texas and taken to mexico by mother a mexican citizen one day before putative father commenced paternity action holding that a texas statute could not be applied to invalidate an insurance policy that had been issued in mexico to a mexican citizen that was to be performed in mexico holding that the place of performance governs the legality of the contract and because the contract was to be performed in mexico texas public policy against gambling was not implicated holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for