Burley v. U.S. Foods, Inc., 368 N.C. 315

Plaintiff, resident of Georgia, accepted a U.S. Foods offer in May 2000 while in Fort Mill, South Carolina, and began working as a delivery driver with routes in GA and SC.
In 2002 U.S. Foods closed the Columbia, SC drop yard after a merger and offered plaintiff either severance or transfer to Lexington, SC, or Charlotte, NC; plaintiff elected transfer to Charlotte and HR in Charlotte approved the transfer.
After the transfer plaintiff kept the same job title and core duties, but received a different route, new customers, administrative supervision from Charlotte, and later changes to pay calculation that increased wages.
Plaintiff was injured in Georgia in 2009; Georgia workers’ compensation initially covered him, and plaintiff later filed a claim with the North Carolina Industrial Commission.
The NCIC deputy commissioner and Full Commission ruled no jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals reversed holding the 2002 transfer modified the contract such that it was "made" in NC; the NC Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court majority held the contract’s situs remained where the last act making it binding occurred (South Carolina) and that later modifications in NC did not change where the contract was "made," reversing the Court of Appeals; a dissent would have treated the transfer as a new contract made in NC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an employment contract is "made in this State" under N.C.G.S. § 97-36 when originally formed in another state but later modified in NC	The 2002 transfer and its terms created a new contract in NC (approved by Charlotte HR), so the contract was made in NC	Once a contract has an identifiable situs (made in another state), subsequent modifications in NC do not change where it was made	Held: A contract’s situs is where the last act necessary to make it binding occurred; modification in another state does not change that situs — contract was made in SC, not NC

Tom Togs, Inc. v. Ben Elias Indus. Corp., 318 N.C. 361 (N.C. 1986) (a contract is made where the last act necessary to make it binding occurred)
Goldman v. Parkland of Dallas, 277 N.C. 223 (N.C. 1970) (supports place-of-contract rule)
Thomas v. Overland Express, Inc., 101 N.C. App. 90 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990) (contract complete where final act occurred despite later paperwork in another state)
Sims v. Truscon Steel Co., 343 Mo. 1216 (Mo. 1939) (post-formation changes in duties/pay do not create a new contract in a different state)
Selser v. Bragmans Bluff Lumber Co., 146 So. 690 (La. Ct. App. 1933) (salary increase and position change elsewhere did not abrogate original contract)
Benguet Consol. Mining Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 36 Cal. App. 2d 158 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939) (later-modifying agreements in other jurisdictions did not supplant original contract situs)
Kuzel v. Aetna Ins. Co., 650 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983) (distinguished: initial dealings were preliminary negotiations, not a modification of an existing contract)
Kilburn v. Grande Corp., 287 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1961) (distinguished: court found periodic employment could create successive implied contracts on pay-period basis)