With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". WL 313122, *2 (N.D.Cal. Aug.3, 1993) aff'd, 21 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.1994)); Gallant v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 111 F.Supp.2d 638 (E. 1149, 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (finding trial court erred in exercising general jurisdiction over insurance carrier, where it issued one life insurance policy to state resident, maintained certificate of authority to transact insurance in state and held mortgage on real property within the state). A defendant's level of business in Florida is insufficient to constitute "continuous and systematic business activities” where only a de minimis percentage of the company's total volume of business and its yearly revenue was derived from its business relationships in Florida. See TRW Vehicle Safety Sys. Inc. v. Santiso, 980 So.2d 1149, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>); Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314 (11th

A: holding that defendants conduct amounted to substantial and nonisolated activity within florida for purposes of general jurisdiction where its advertising strategy was designed to generate product sales in florida and its dollar volume of sales was substantial
B: holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events
C: holding opinion testimony of sales should have been excluded because opinion not based on comparable sales
D: holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis
D.