Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and only reviews for abuse of that discretion. Austin v. U.S. Bank of Wash., 73 Wash.App. 293, 869 P.2d 404, 410 (1994). A trustee abuses his or her discretion only when they act “arbitrarily, in bad faith, maliciously, or fraudulently.” Id. Here, the record contains no evidence that Ms. Montague abused the considerable discretion the Trust Agreement vested in her. See Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Blume, 65 Wash.2d 643, 399 P.2d 76, 79 (1965) (upholding summary judgment against trust beneficiaries claiming bad faith where the trustee’s actions were “well within the bounds of reasonable judgment”). The record indicates that Ms. Montague administered the trust consis tent with the terms of the trust agreement, and Mr. Vaughn has submitted no evidence to the contrary. Id. . Mr. Vaughn contends that Ms. Montague abused
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that the trustee did not breach its fiduciary duty when its actions were consistent with the trust instrument
C. holding that the deferential standard of review of a plan interpretation is appropriate only when the trust instrument allows the trustee to interpret the instrument and when the trust ee has in fact interpreted the instrument
D. holding that a debtor could not relitigate the claim that the trustee breached his fiduciary duty because the bankruptcy court had already held that the trustees actions were not improper
E. holding that causes of actions against directors of corporations for breach of fiduciary duty are contract actions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.