With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Bakotich v. Swanson, 91 Wash. App. 311, 957 P.2d 275, 278-79 (1998) (noting that in the employment context, “an at-will employment contract anticipates that the employer may repudiate at any time without ramification,” and that, as a result, “any lost wages or benefits [are] highly speculative and properly excluded by the trial court”). Guest concedes that her relationship with Allstate could be terminated at any time. As a result, we conclude that Guest was unable to prove future earnings with any reasonable degree of certainty. See Lovington Cattle Feeders, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 97 N.M. 564, 568, 642 P.2d 167, 171 (1982) (stating that “damages, to be recoverable, must be proven with reasonable certainty and not be based upon speculation”); see also Kinsey, 521 F.Supp.2d at 308 (<HOLDING>). {57} To the extent that Guest asserts that

A: holding that the plaintiff must have more than a unilateral expectation the plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit
B: holding that whether a spouses employment termination benefit is separate or marital property is determined by whether the right to payment accrued during marriage
C: holding that there was no prejudice to a plaintiff and thus no basis for sanctions when evidence believed to be lost was found and promptly turned over to the plaintiff
D: holding that where the employment contract was at will there simply can be no certainty regarding whether the plaintiff would have remained employed long enough for the benefit the plaintiff claims he lost to have accrued
D.