Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
act following Jorge’s initial act of fraud, and his petition makes it very clear he is complaining that appellees’ acts proximately caused him this second injury. Appellees’ allegations, by focusing solely on Jorge’s first act of malfeasance, do not respond to Roberto’s claim and therefore provide no valid grounds for summary judgment. We conclude the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on this ground. Conclusion We reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appel-lees and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. 1 . This analysis also holds true for appellees' statute of limitation arguments in response to Roberto's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and conversion. See Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 645 (Tex.1988) ; In re Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583, 586
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba
B. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where precontract misrepresentations were directly related to alleged breach of contract
C. holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan
D. holding that breach of fiduciary duty justified using discovery rule to toll limitations
E. holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty can be resolved under connecticut law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.