With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Paragraph 3 of the complaint names San Francisco, but Plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum notes that RSI had ceased doing business in California by the time of the underlying employment dispute and, more importantly, the subsequent insurance claim spawning from that dispute. Federal takes issue with the absence of such an allegation in the complaint. To the extent that a factual dispute over RSI's principal place of business exists in the first place, it does not preclude a choice of law at this stage because the alleged "injury” occurred in Rhode Island — the most important factor in Rhode Island’s interest-weighing approach. 6 . Other courts have reached the same result under principles of joint venture. See Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis, 114 Nev. 1249, 969 P.2d 949, 959 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins.

A: holding that an administrator was involved in a joint venture with the insurer and thereby exposed to bad faith liability based on evidence that the administrator collected premiums handled claims and took a commission on the premiums collected and a percentage of the renewal commissions
B: holding the carew rule to be inapplicable to claims of insurer bad faith
C: holding that an administrator that billed and collected premiums paid and adjudicated claims and shared in the insurers profits was involved in a joint venture with the insurer and therefore suscep tibie to claims of bad faith
D: holding that the employer created an erisa plan when it 1 paid for the employees insurance 2 contracted with the insurance company for coverage and eligibility requirements and 3 collected and remitted the employees dependents premiums
C.