With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court’s choice and application of the standard of review to the Plan’s decision. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review- the Plan’s decision denying Barnes and other “Lump Sum” class members additional retirement benefits for an abuse of discretion with scepticism. See Burke v. Pitney Bowes Inc. Long-Term Disability Plan, 544 F.3d 1016, 1023-24 (9th Cir.2008). Where, as here, a plan unambiguously grants an administrator discretionary authority, the court reviews the administrator’s decision for abuse of discretion. Id. In determining the standard of review, we take into account the existence of a structural conflict of interest. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 965 (<HOLDING>); Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105,

A: holding the district court erred by finding an automatic conflict of interest merely because insurer and administrator were the same
B: holding that plan administrator that was also insurer operated under conflict of interest
C: holding that a structural conflict of interest exists when an insurer acts as both the plan administrator and the funding source
D: holding that when the insurer is also the plan administrator we have recognized something akin to a rebuttable presumption of a palpable conflict of interest
C.