With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". County, Kentucky, and its fiscal court are entitled to sovereign immunity “for the tortious performance of governmental functions”); Franklin Cnty., Ky. v. Malone, 957 S.W.2d 195, 203 (Ky.1997) (stating that county immunity from tort liability, in the absence of waiver, is “well-settled”). Floyd County and Floyd County Fiscal Court “enjoy the benefits and protection of governmental immunity except where it has been explicitly waived by the [Kentucky] legislature.” Furtula v. Univ. of Ky., 438 S.W.3d 303, 305 & n. 1 (Ky.2014). A. No Legislative Waiver of Governmental Immunity Exists in This Case. None of the Kentucky statutes that the plaintiff mentions waive Floyd County’s governmental immunity, neither explicitly nor by necessary implication. Cf. Furtula, 438 S.W.3d 303 at 305-06 (<HOLDING>). Shepherd cites Section 44.072 of the Kentucky

A: holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added
B: holding that kentucky revised statute krs 45a245 explicitly waived sovereign immunity for contract actions
C: recognizing that immunity may be waived
D: holding that a claim that sovereign immunity has been waived is itself waived if not argued on appeal
B.