With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court did not err in admitting it. In addition, even if the statements were inadmissible, GNS was not harmed by the admission because neither the trial court nor this court relied on them. We therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Fullmer. BENCH and GREENWOOD, JJ., concur. 1 . As stated in its brief, GNS raises this argument simply to preserve its rights in the event we determine that an affidavit regarding the availability of renter's insurance is necessary. 2 . It is not clear from the Sutton opinion what the terms of the rental agreement were; however, it is clear that the landlords did not obligate the tenant to furnish fire insurance, but rather purchased it themselves. Sutton, 532 P.2d at 482. 3 . But see Page v. Scott, 263 Ark. 684, 567 S.W.2d 101 (1978) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Neubauer v. Hostetter, 485 N.W.2d 87 (Iowa

A: holding tenants leasing house by oral agreement were coinsureds both landlord and tenants had liability insurance
B: holding that a landlord may have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its tenants in common areas
C: holding other lease provisions evidenced intent to relieve tenant from fire damage liability
D: holding landlord may recover from tenant for fire damage caused by tenants negligence regardless of existence of insurance
D.