§ 1132(e)(1) (emphasis added). Therefore the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the COBRA claim. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court with respect to breach of contract, breach of contract damages, and § 75-1.1 claim and damages. We vacate the trial court’s decision with respect to intentional infliction of emotional distress and damages pursuant to that claim and assertion of jurisdiction over the COBRA claim. We reverse the trial court on the issue of trebling pre-judgment interest and remand to the trial court to enter an amount of damages in accordance with this opinion. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Judges TYSON and BRYANT concur. 1 . In the Matter of Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989)
holding that one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion holding that a panel of this court is bound by a holding of a prior panel but is not bound by a prior panels dicta holding that a panel of the court of appeals is bound by a prior decision of another panel of the same court addressing the same question but in a different case unless overturned by an intervening decision from a higher court holding that where a panel of the court of appeals has decided the same issue albeit in a different case a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent unless it has been overturned by a higher court holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court