With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ordinance in St. Louis Park Post No. 5632, while the removal of Burkhart's billboard was not required by ordinance. Burkhart asserts that "without an applicable ordinance, the City could have approved Providence's primary development plan without requiring the removal of Burkhart's sign." Appellant's Br. p. 11. We find Burkbart's argument unpersuasive. First, the court in St Louis Park Post No. 5682 focused on the terms of the billboard lease, not the ordinance. Moreover, it is unclear how the City could have approved Providence's development plan without requiring removal of Burkbhart's billboard where the billboard would have been in the middle of the new deceleration lane at the office park's entrance. See also Lamar Co., LLC v. City of Fremont, 278 Neb. 485, 771 N.W.2d 894 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Lamar Advantage G.P. Co., LLC v. Addison Park

A: holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses
B: recognizing in both cases that its subrogation rights were ineffectual because the lender had not preserved its rights to a deficiency judgment against the veteran
C: holding that the billboard owners rights were extinguished when its leases were terminated and its takings claim failed
D: holding that the trustee did not breach its fiduciary duty when its actions were consistent with the trust instrument
C.