Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” See Hahn v. Mirda, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 748, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 527 (2007). Here, because Ford, as discussed above, owed plaintiffs no duty to disclose the risk that its ignition locks would fail, Ford is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim. See Oestreieher II, 322 Fed.Appx. at 493 . Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs’
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding because plaintiff had not alleged defendant made a misrepresentation or that the alleged defect posed a safety risk the district court  properly dismissed plaintiffs  fraudulent concealment claim
B. holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim
C. holding that alleged defects in special interrogatories could not be the basis for a new trial when counsel had not pointed out the alleged defect to the court
D. holding plaintiffs misrepresentation claim preempted where the only alleged misrepresentations shown by plaintiff were those contained in their labeling or safety data sheet
E. holding that the plaintiffs mere failure to execute on a judgment the only allegedly fraudulent act is not fraudulent concealment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.