With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". process’ ”); id. ¶ 85 (“Defendants had explained ... differences [in market timing models] to the regulators.”). Got-tex asserts that these communications constituted inquiry, and, furthermore, that “Defendants’ counsel’s assurances and statements regarding the investigation and whether Defendant[s’] trading practices had been within mutual fund parameters,” constituted “reliable words of comfort” suf- 332 580 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES fícient to dissipate any duty to inquire. Pl.’s Mem. in Opp.- at 12-14 (citing LC Capital Partners, 318 F.3d at 155). [13]“[RJeassuring statements will prevent the emergence of a duty to inquire or dissipate such a duty only if an investor of ordinary intelligence would reasonably rely on the stat ., 833 F.Supp. 362, 376 n. 12 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>). Given the volume and nature of the

A: holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements
B: holding that discretionary immunity does not apply where plaintiff alleged facts that if true constituted a breach of states duty of reasonable care
C: holding that reassuring statements did not relieve plaintiff of duty to undertake reasonable inquiry
D: holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant
C.