With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appeal, the Second Circuit held that BMW/NA had no duty to prevent the customer’s loss caused by the president’s criminal activity and reversed the judgment for the customer. Id. at 1101. The Second Circuit explained: [T]he district court improperly determined that [the customer’s] injury was reasonably foreseeable, and thus erred in finding BMW/NA liable for negligent failure to police the methods of operation of its independent franchisee and to terminate the fr 4 Ga.App. 38, 668 S.E.2d 737, 747-49 (2008) (finding that a franchisor owed no duty to a customer defrauded by one of its franchisees under either the Georgia Franchise Practices Act or the franchise agreement); see also Freedman v. Tenn Dev. Corp., No. 91-475 LON, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11021, at *39-47 (D.Del. Aug. 3, 1993) (<HOLDING>). Like the franchisor in Cullen, Jackson Hewitt

A: holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage
B: holding that no private right of action exists
C: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
D: holding that a franchisor had no duty to supervise a potential franchisees activities in soliciting financing from private investors
D.