With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims in exchange for severance pay and Stull’s promise to pay her another month’s medical benefits. Stull insists that it upheld its end of the bargain — it paid benefits through November 30. Although Marie did not receive severance pay, an issue discussed more fully below, Stull asserts that Marie was not contractually entitled to it because she did not fulfill the condition precedent of working through November 6. Berthony responds that the SSP’s waiver does not protect Stull, for each of Berthony’s claims arose subsequent to Marie’s acceptance of the waiver, which occurred on October 11, 1998. He submits that our precedents refuse to recognize waivers of claims arising in the future. See Three Rivers Motors Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 522 F.2d 885, 896 n. 27 (3d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, he asserts that Stull’s concept of

A: holding that prospective waivers of claims are void as against public policy
B: holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy
C: holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds
D: holding exhaustion clauses to be void as against hawaiis public policy
A.