With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The decedent, who had his prescriptions filled by the defendant pharmacy, had a stroke because of an adverse drug interaction. Id. at 200-201. The plaintiff sued, alleging, among other things, that the defendant’s representation that its computer system prevented adverse drug interactions violated the MCPA. Id. at 206-207. The defendant argued that MCL 445.904(1)(a) exempted it from a claim under the MCPA, because pharmacies are regulated by the Michigan Board of Pharmacy. This Court held that the defendant was not exempt from the MCPA, because regulation of advertising was not within the purview of the Ph preemption, our Supreme Court has recognized that common-law claims may also be “preempted” by a state statute. See Jackson v PKM Corp, 430 Mich 262, 279; 422 NW2d 657 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Millross v Plum Hollow Golf Club, 429 Mich

A: holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity
B: holding that the dramshop act mcl 43622  affords the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of an unlawful sale giving away or furnishing of intoxicants thereby preempting all commonlaw actions arising out of these circumstances
C: holding that plaintiffs negligence claim which arose out of the selling giving or furnishing of alcoholic liquor by a liquor licensee is preempted by the exclusive remedy of the dramshop act
D: holding that expunction unavailable for individual charge arising out of arrest for improper relationship between an educator and student when petitioner convicted of possessing illegal firearms arising out of the same transaction
B.