With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478, 485, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2185, 2189, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). The Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), delineated the following elements as necessary for a state to acquire jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: [I]n order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he [must] have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158. Recently, in Syl. Pt. 1, Hill by Hill v. Showa Denko, K.K., 188 W.Va. 654, 425 S.E.2d 609 (1992) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2338, 124 L.Ed.2d 249 (1993) (<HOLDING>), this Court repeated our standard for

A: holding that although plaintiffs claims were masked in various legal theories they were premised on a single claim of product liability and therefore fell under north carolinas product liability statute
B: holding that personal jurisdiction can be premised on the placement of a product into the stream of commerce
C: holding that single substantial act can support exercise of personal jurisdiction
D: holding that a plaintiff may not rely on an unadorned stream of commerce theory to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over defendants
B.