With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on manufacturers to recall and/or retrofit a defective product because the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions have rejected such an obligation. See, e.g., Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 85 Hawaii 336, 944 P.2d 1279, 1298-1300 (Haw.1997) (citing cases and stating that “virtually every court that has confronted the issue head-on” has rejected this duty); see also Burke v. Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 508 n. 16 (8th Cir.1993) (restating that no such duty exists under Iowa law), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1115, 114 S.Ct. 1063, 127 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Wallace v. Dorsey Trailers Southeast, Inc., 849 F.2d 341, 344 (8th Cir.1988) (affirming district court’s conclusion that Missouri does not recognize a duty to retrofit); Gregory v. Cincinnati Inc., 450 Mich. 1, 538 N.W.2d 325, 333 (Mich.1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, plaintiffs negligence claims are

A: holding that there was no basis for continuing an appeal in light of  317b
B: holding there is no continuing duty to repair or recall
C: holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend
D: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
B.