With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and is not barred. The negligence claim based on “failing to adequately test and inspect” plainly qualifies as one based on “inspection” and it is likewise excepted from the time bars. The remaining claim is based on “construction and maintenance.” The Johnson distinction does not save a claim based on faulty construction of a component. But the exception for maintenance does save this claim to the extent that the Siewerts base it on “maintenance” of “power distribution systems.” NSP argues that, with respect to the claims that might fall under this exception, the Siewerts have not alleged facts sufficient to establish the duty element of their negligence claims against NSP and therefore have failed to prove a statutory exception to the statute of repose. See Aquila, 718 N.W.2d at 886 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the Siewerts have alleged

A: holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process
B: holding in context of minnstat  541051 that burden of proving exception lies with party who seeks to claim benefit of exception
C: recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context
D: recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
B.