With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The plaintiffs assert that the minor damage to then-home prior to the policy period is in no way related to or evidence of hidden decay. The plaintiffs contend that the decay of the interior portion of the rear wall remained hidden until the wall collapsed in October, 1996. By its terms, the Hartford homeowners policy “applies only to loss in Section 1 ... which occurs during the policy period.” Defendants’ Exhibit B, Sections I and II- — Conditions, ¶ 1 at 17 of 18. For insurance purposes, damages “occur” when they “first manifest themselves in a way that could be ascertained by reasonable diligence.” Keystone Automated Equipment v. Reliance Insurance Company, 369 Pa.Super. 472, 535 A.2d 648, 651 (1988); D’Auria v. Zurich Insurance Company, 352 Pa.Super. 231, 507 A.2d 857, 862 (1986)(<HOLDING>). This would apply even if the damage

A: holding that excess coverage in four policies was not triggered until primary insurer satisfied the requirements necessary to trigger the excess insurers coverage and paid the full amount of its limits
B: holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed
C: holding the plain terms of the mortgage did not demonstrate any contractual duty on the mortgagee to procure coverage on plaintiffs property or to notify plaintiff of lapse in coverage
D: holding that none of the physicians insurers had a duty to provide coverage since the effects of the negligence first manifested themselves prior to the coverage periods of any of the three policies
D.