providing this coverage simply because Plaintiffs chose to file for benefits in another state that may also have jurisdiction. If the interpretation propounded by General Casualty is adopted, then it is conceivable that a North Carolina employer who had policy with this provision - but providing coverage for benefits required under North Carolina law - would be afforded no coverage under its policy for an accident occurring in North Carolina where the employee chose to file for benefits in another state that might also have jurisdiction. For instance, another state may assert jurisdiction because the injured employee originally accepted the employer’s offer of employment while in the that state. See Murray v. Ahlstrom Indus. Holdings, Inc., 131 N.C. App. 294, 506 S.E.2d 724 (1998) (<HOLDING>). General Casualty, which drafted the policy
holding that a debtor is required to claim any exemptions under north carolina law because north carolina is an opt out state under 11 usc  522b holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce holding that because north carolina has opted out of the exemptions provided under 11 usc  522d the exemptions available for bankruptcy debtors in north carolina depend upon the law of north carolina holding that north carolina has jurisdiction over a claim arising from an accident in mississippi because the original offer of employment was accepted over the telephone while the employee was in north carolina holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina