With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". administration company, sued defendants Robert Dube, an underwriter, and Lafayette Life Insur-anee Company, alleging, among other claims, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Excess Risk, 208 F.Supp.2d at 1312. In defendant Dube’s motion to dismiss, he claimed that the economic loss doctrine barred ERU’s breach of fiduciary duty claim. The court agreed and granted Dube’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 1316. The court reasoned that “ERU’s breach of fiduciary duty claim against Dube is barred by the economic loss rule because ERU has not alleged facts independent from the contract” and because the breach of fiduciary duty claim arose solely as a result of the existence of the contract. Id.; see also McCutcheon v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., 938 F.Supp. 820, 824 (S.D.Fla.1996)(<HOLDING>); Hilliard, 125 F.Supp.2d at 1080 (economic

A: holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties
B: recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
C: holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract
D: holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties
A.