With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". & Son (an unincorporated division of Federal) is party to the agreements at issue in this case, the parties entered into a tolling agreement, in December 2005, dismissing without prejudice all claims against them. 4 . Captives typically buy reinsurance as a risk-spreading mechanism. See In re Petition of the Bd. of Dirs. of Hopewell Int’l Ins., Ltd., 272 B.R. 396, 400 & n. 1 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2002). Here, FFG purchased reinsurance from (or, in proper parlance, ceded it to) Federal on the Policy. Under this particular type of reinsurance (known as quota-share reinsurance), Federal agreed to cover 30% of FFG’s losses under the Policy in exchange for the same percentage of Fleet's premium. 5 . RSI's principal place of business is not entirely cl 145 Ariz. 1, 699 P.2d 376, 386 (Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The opinion does not specify whether the

A: 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
B: recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard
C: 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
D: 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
D.