With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in ERISA’s scope. In light of these facts, we hold that ANSI’s severance plan is an ERISA plan, and that the district court did not err in applying federal common law precedents to interpret the contractual language. II. Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The question of whether this ERISA-gov-erned severance benefit plan’s contractual language is ambiguous is a question of law requiring de novo review. Wulf v. Quantum r.1992) (same); Lakey v. Remington Arms Co., 874 F.2d 541, 545 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs point out that according to the

A: holding that employer is not vicariously hable for employees negligence while driving to work where such driving conferred no special benefit upon employer other than to make employees services available
B: holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work
C: holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work
D: holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate
B.