Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
each room with a telephone breached such motel’s duty to protect guests from assault by third parties); Lewis v. Roescher, 193 Ark. 161, 98 S.W.2d 956, 957 (1936) (declining, as a matter of contract law, to impose a duty upon innkeepers to furnish guests with working telephones after a guest fell ill in his room and was unable to summon aid). Others still have considered whether innkeepers can be liable for failing to maintain particular staff positions or provide particular services. See Zerangue v. Delta Towers, Ltd., 820 F.2d 130, 132-33 (5th Cir.1987) (invoking an innkeeper’s duty to provide safe premises where a guest was locked out of a hotel in New Orleans at 3:00 a.m. and subsequently assaulted); Gumbart v. Waterbury Club Holding Corp., 27 F.Supp. 228, 229-30 (D.Conn.1938) ; Fortney v. Hotel Rancroft, 5 Ill.App.2d 327,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the preexisting duty exception does not apply where the preexisting duty is a limited one and the alleged negligence is the failure to provide a level of assistance beyond that required by the preexisting duty
B. holding that a corporation has a duty under rule 80b6 to provide someone who is knowledgeable in order to provide binding answers on behalf of the corporation
C. holding that an innkeeper does not have a duty to provide each guest with a key maintain staff at the front door of the inn during the night or provide a wakeup call
D. holding that fraudulent oral misrepresentation of the level of benefits does not provide the basis for a nonpreempted claim even though erisa may also provide no remedy
E. holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.