With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". authorizes this action. The Commissioner’s apparent assertion that that doctrine does not apply to him, or to cases involving a state’s regulation of the business of insurance, is plainly wrong. See, e.g., Barnett Bank, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25, 116 S.Ct. 1103, 134 L.Ed.2d 237 (1996) (enforcing federal law in federal action against same Florida insurance commissioner). 4 . In addition, in State Board of Ins. v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 370 U.S. 451, 82 S.Ct. 1380, 8 L.Ed.2d 620 (1962), the Supreme Court reconfirmed prior holdings that a state lacks jurisdiction to tax insurance contracts entered outside the state. In doi ue, 449 U.S. 302, 310-11, 101 S.Ct. 633, 66 L.Ed.2d 521 (1981); see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, even when one of the parties to a

A: holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts
B: holding consumers unilateral act of taking product to forum state insufficient to subject manufacturer to jurisdiction there
C: holding that foreign drag manufacturer who marketed its product in kentucky through independent distributor was nonetheless subject to personal jurisdiction in forum under asahis additional conduct standard
D: holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant car manufacturer was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffs unilateral activity of driving defendants product into another state
B.