With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that lot. However, despite Clear Channel and Koplik being involved in general security planning measures for the event and hiring many of the police officers who provided security services, the evidence indicates that Clear Channel and Koplik had no control over the management of the parking lot in which the plaintiff was injured or over police operations at that lot. It is undisputed that officers who worked at the lot on the day of the concert were hired by Pro Park pursuant to a contract between the City of Hartford and Pro Park. Under these circumstances, Clear Channel and Koplik owed no duty of care to a patron of that parking lot who never purchased a ticket to the concert. See, e.g., Kolodziej v. Durham Agricultural Fair Ass’n, Inc., 96 Conn.App. 791, 901 A.2d 1242, 1246 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the motion for summary judgment on

A: holding that in a recovery of benefits claim only the plan and the administrators and trustees of the plan in their capacity as such may be held liable
B: holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary
C: holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach
D: holding that agricultural fair association did not owe fairgoer who was struck and killed while walking along an adjacent public highway after leaving the fair a duty of care arising out of an allegedly deficient traffic safety plan for the fair because the undisputed evidence established that the implementation of the plan rested exclusively with the towns board of selectmen and thus outside the defendants legal authority or capacity
D.