In Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2005), the Texas Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether a nonresident's alleged misrepresentation in a telephone call with a Texas resident was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident in a Texas court. 168 S.W.3d at 783. In concluding that it was not sufficient, the court recognized that entering into a single contract with a Texas resident will not support the exercise of personal jurisdiction when it involves a single contact taking place outside the forum state. Id. at 786. A Texas resident bought a recreational vehicle from a nonresident seller, and brought suit against the seller for an alleged misrepresentation made during a phone call initiated by the buyer. Id. at 781, 784. The seller, a separate legal entity from the manufacturer, was located in Indiana, did not have employees or property in Texas, was not authorized to do business in Texas, did not advertise in Texas or on the Internet, and did not solicit business from the purchaser or from anyone else in Texas. Id. at 784. The supreme court addressed the question of whether suit could be brought in Texas against the seller based on its alleged misrepresentation in this single, unsolicited telephone call. Id. The supreme court held that "because the seller's only contact with Texas was the buyer's decision to place his order from Texas," the seller was not subject to the jurisdiction of a Texas court. Id. at 794. The evidence showed that the buyer called Michiana, bought the RV, and had it shipped to him in Texas. Id. at 784. The sales contract signed by the parties stated that any litigation would occur in Indiana. Id. at 792. The buyer later sued Michiana in Texas for breach of contract and other claims. In response, Michiana filed a special appearance arguing that it was not amenable to personal jurisdiction in Texas. Id. The Texas Supreme Court agreed. In discussing the relevant factors the court noted that the single contact in that case was initiated by the buyer. See id. at 786-87. The court also noted that the forum selection clause stating that any litigation would occur in Indiana "sug-gests that no local availment was intended." Id. at 792-93. The court never stated that the company's knowledge that: (1) the plaintiff lived in Texas; (2) the RV would be shipped to Texas; (3) that any damages would occur in Texas affected the minimum-contacts and purposeful-availment anal-yses. However, that knowledge was the basis of the dissenting opinion in Michiana, which indicates the majority rejected that position. See id. at 794, 796 (Medina, J., dissenting). The Texas Supreme Court held that none of these facts sufficed as purposeful availment by Michiana to the Texas forum. It relied on precedents emphasizing that a single or "isolated" unsolicited purchase of a product made from the forum state, or the ensuing shipment of the product there, could not alone establish jurisdiction because the contact, as such, had resulted from the unilateral actions of the purchaser rather than those of the seller. Similarly, the court reiterated that "a single contract with a Texas resident cannot automatically establish ju-risdiction" and that the real issue was the extent to which the contract contemplated or entailed jurisdictional-ly significant contacts with the forum state. Such contacts were lacking, the supreme court observed, where "Holten the Texas resident paid for the RV in advance and could not have planned on taking it to Indiana regularly for service"--in short, "everything Michiana wanted out of the contract it had in hand." Under those circumstances, the court concluded, "it is hard to imagine what possible benefits and protection Michiana enjoyed from Texas law" or even "how Michiana would have conducted its activities any differently if Texas had no law at all." The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas courts lacked specific jurisdiction over the plaintiff's tort claims based on misrepresentations about the transaction, allegedly made by the defendant during the phone call. See id. at 784-94. The Michiana court held that "directing a tort" at Texas is insufficient alone to establish jurisdiction because such a concept would improperly shift a court's focus to the relationship among the "plaintiff, the forum . . . and the litigation" rather than "the defendant, the forum and the litigation." Id. at 790-91. Similarly, the Michiana court rejected the notion that specific jurisdiction was appropriate because the alleged tort was committed during a telephone conversation between the plaintiff in Texas and the defendant. See id. at 791-92. The court reasoned, "changes in technology have made reliance on phone calls obsolete as proof of pur-poseful availment. . . . If jurisdiction can be based on phone conversations 'directed at' a forum, how does a defendant avail itself of any jurisdiction when it can never know where the other party has forwarded calls or traveled with a mobile phone?" Id. at 791. The court further recognized the purposeful-availment analysis must focus on the extent of the defendant's activities and not the fact that the plaintiff "happens to live" in the forum state during a singular phone con-versation. See id. at 789-90. Michiana had no employees or property in Texas, was not authorized to do business in Texas, did not advertise in Texas, and did not solicit business in Texas. Id. The sale of the RV was initiated by Holten's telephone call to Michiana and the RV was shipped to Texas at Holten's request and expense. Id. Michiana had not placed large numbers of RVs in the stream of commerce, nor had Michiana designed, ad-vertised, or distributed RVs in Texas. Id. at 786. Michiana had no choice regarding the place of delivery. Id. at 787. Holten paid for the RV in advance. Id. "Holten's decision to place his order from Texas" was Michiana's only contact with Texas; thus, Michiana's contacts were insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. Id. at 788, 794. In Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, a Texas plaintiff, Holten, contacted Michiana, a factory outlet for Coachmen RVs. Based on his conversations with the company, Holten purchased an RV. At Holten's request and expense, Michiana shipped the RV to Texas. Id. at 784. Holten subsequently sued Michiana in Texas for fraudulent misrepresentations made during Holten's tele-phone conversation with Michiana, for breach of contract, and for statutory claims. Id. at 781, 788-92. The Court concluded that Michiana had no purposeful contacts with Texas. Michiana never solicited Holten's business. It never marketed itself in Texas nor made any attempt to enter the Texas RV market. Michiana's contact with Texas arose solely because a Texas resident decided to buy an RV from it. Had Holten not been a Texan, Michiana would have had no contact with Texas. Id. at 785-87. This contact with Texas was fortuitous because it arose from Holten's actions, not Michiana's. See id at 786. The Court stated that the contacts of parties "who reach out beyond one state and create continuing rela-tionships and obligations with citizens of another state" are purposeful rather than fortuitous. Id. at 785. The court in Michiana concluded that a single sale of a motorhome to a Texas resident was not a purposeful availment because the relationship between the parties would end once the sale was consummated. Id. at 786-86. The Texas Supreme Court considered "whether a nonresident 'purposefully avails' itself of a forum when it benefits from a major market without doing any of the marketing." See Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 786. The Court ultimately held that a single product sale arising out of a phone call initiated by the plaintiff from Texas to an Indiana business does not satisfy minimum contacts because the non-resident defendant did not purposefully direct marketing efforts in Texas to solicit sales. Id. at 785-86. The supreme court noted that "changes in technology have made reliance on phone calls obsolete as proof of purposeful availment." Id. at 791. The phone call in Michiana satisfied none of the three key aspects of purposeful availment: the seller's con-tact with Texas resulted not from its own activity but from the Texas resident's unilateral activity, namely, the phone call initiated by the Texas resident; the seller's contact with Texas was not purposeful but isolated and fortuitous; and the seller did not "avail" itself of the privilege of doing business in Texas. See id. at 785. But while the seller's sole telephonic contact with Texas fell short of purposeful availment, the supreme court's use of the modifier "necessarily" in its disapproval of "opinions holding that . . . specific jurisdiction is necessarily established by allegations or evidence that a nonresident committed a tort in a telephone call from a Texas number" suggests that telephonic contact may rise to the level of purposeful availment in dif-ferent circumstances. See id. at 791-92. In Michiana, the supreme court noted that directed-a-tort jurisdiction--that is, jurisdiction based on where the effect of a defendant's tort is felt--causes several problems. 168 S.W.3d at 790. First, it shifts the court's focus from the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation to the relationship among the plaintiff, the forum, and the litigation. Id. Second, it confuses the roles of judge and jury by equating the jurisdictional inquiry with the underlying mer-its; in other words, it shifts the analysis from contacts to culpability. Id. at 790-91. Third, directed-a-tort jurisdiction shifts the focus from the defendant's contacts to the type of claim asserted by the plaintiff; for example, a defendant might be subject to jurisdiction by directing a tort at the forum but not be subject to jurisdiction for a contract claim arising from the same facts. Id. at 791. And finally the supreme court observed that changes in technology have made reliance on phone calls ob-solete as proof of purposeful availment (though, as we have also noted, it did not hold that phone calls can never be proof of purposeful availment). Id. Ultimately, the court rejected the notion that "specific jurisdiction turns on whether a defendant's contacts were tortious rather than the contacts themselves." Id. at 792. The Court held that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was not proper over Michiana because its sole con-tact with Texas was not the result of actions it directed towards Texas. Michiana, an Indiana company, received a phone call from Holten, a Texas resident. Id. at 784. Holten ar-ranged to buy an RV from Michiana and to have it shipped to Texas at his own expense. Id. During the course of this phone call, Michiana allegedly made misrepresentations to Holten. Id. The supreme court rejected cases that upheld personal jurisdiction based on whether the defendant "directed a tort" to-wards Texas in a single phone call. Id. at 790-91. First, the court explained the focus must remain on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation," but a "directing a tort" analysis shifts the focus to the relationship among the plaintiff, the forum, and the litigation. Id. at 790. Second, "directing a tort" analysis improperly focuses on the merits of the claim; the focus should be on the defendant's contacts with Texas, not whether those contacts were tortious. Id. at 790-91. Third, focusing on whether the defendant directed a tort toward Texas could alter the outcome of jurisdictional analysis based on whether the plaintiff alleged a tort or a contract claim based on the same actions. Id. at 791. The supreme court disapproved of intermediate court holdings that "(1) specific jurisdiction is necessarily established by allegations or evidence that a nonresident committed a tort in a telephone call from a Texas number, or that (2) specific jurisdiction turns on whether a defendant's contacts were tortious rather than the contacts themselves." Id. at 791-92. In sum in Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc. v. Holten, a Texas resident sought out services from an Indiana resident. Id. at 784. The Indiana resident never traveled to Texas, did not have employees in Texas, did not advertise in Texas and was not licensed to do business in Texas. Id. Additionally, the requested services were performed in Indiana and payments were made outside Texas. Id. Allegedly, the Indiana resident made a misrepresentation over the telephone to the Texas resident, which was the basis of the underlying suit. Id. The Texas Supreme Court held the Indiana resident did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to warrant establishing personal jurisdiction over the Indiana resident in Texas. Id. at 794. The Court hels that a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction based on his own purposeful activity and not on the unilateral acts of a third party. Therefore, it is only the defendant's contacts with the forum that count when determining whether he has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in the state of Texas. Id. In addition, the acts relied upon must be "purposeful" rather than fortuitous. Id. Also, a defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by "availing" himself of the jurisdiction. Id. It is the quality and the nature of the defendant's contacts, rather than the quantity, that is important to the minimum contact analysis. Random, isolated, or fortuitous contacts with the forum state are insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Michiana, 168 S.W.3d at 785. In sum, the plaintiff/buyer initiated contact with a recreational vehicle manufacturer that otherwise did not do business in Texas. Id. The single phone call in Michiana resulted in a one-time sale to a single individual and did not constitute purposeful availment of the benefits of Texas law by the manufacturer. Id.