With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (reviewing employers’ various duties to use ordinary care in providing safe workplace). Jacobs Engineering does not explain how an affidavit from a third-party sound engineer could shed light on whether these alleged errors and omissions were negligent. Further, we note that the Legislature did not define the practice of engineering to include providing a safe workplace. See Tex. Occ. Code § 1001.003(b), (c). We conclude that the plaintiffs’ gross negligence claims, as pleaded, do not arise out of Jacobs Engineering’s provision of professional engineering services, but rather Jacobs Engineering’s alleged breach of duties it owed to its employees generally, and to Elsey in particular, to provide a safe workplace. Compare Rivera, 339 S.W.3d at 755-56 (<HOLDING>); RCS Enters., LP v. Hilton, No.

A: holding that cerclas claims presentation provision only applies to claims asserted against the fund
B: holding that elevator rider who asserted premisesliability claims against professional engineering firm that provided management services to premises owner was not required to provide certificate of merit because claims as alleged did not clearly arise out of the provision of professional engineering services
C: holding that certain fiduciary duty claims did not arise out of the underlying contractual provisions
D: holding that homebuyers claims against professional engineering firm acting as thirdparty inspector did not did not implicate the practice of engineering
B.