With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the policy is unambiguous. Rather, State Farm contends that by “[ujsing the rationale by the Supreme Court in Monta[ñ]o [v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 2004-NMSC-020, 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255], the amount of stacked coverage is determined by looking to the contractual expectations of the insured, which [are] tied to the number of policies and number of premiums — not the number of vehicles that may actually be entitled to coverage at a particular time, depending upon when an insured decides to sell one vehicle to obtain another, and holds onto the old vehicle for a short period of time in the process.” Montano is not dispositive in this case because we are not dealing with a limitation-of-stacking clause — the issue in Montano. See 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶5, 19-21, 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255 (<HOLDING>). Rather, the issue at hand is whether the

A: holding that where a duty to obtain specified insurance coverage exists a plaintiff must prove that the loss is one insured against in some policy
B: holding that when an insurance policy contains an antistacking clause the insurance company must obtain a written rejection of um coverage for each additional vehicle covered by a policy in order to clarify the insureds expectations and to make certain that the insured gets only what he or she has paid for
C: holding that an insurance company should obtain written rejections of stacking in order to limit its liability based on an antistacking provision
D: holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued
B.