With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". With respect to the legal disability statute, this Court has previously concluded that “[t]he legislative purpose involved ... is to declare that statutes of limitation do not begin to run until a person’s disability is removed.” Arnold v. Davis, 503 S.W.2d 100, 102 (Tenn.1973). We also agree with our Court of Appeals that “ ‘exceptions to a limitations statute in favor of persons under disability should be strictly construed and never extended beyond their plain import.’ ” Owen v. Summers, 97 S.W.3d 114, 123 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) (quoting Smith v. Grumman-Olsen Corp., 913 F.Supp. 1077, 1083 (E.D.Tenn.1995)). As noted by the district court in its certification order, the legal disability statute gives the legal representatives of minor persons and those o 26 S.W.2d 436, 438 (1939) (<HOLDING>); Green v. Lombard, 28 Md.App. 1, 343 A.2d 905,

A: holding that tolling provisions of 60515 apply only if the disability occurs during the running of the statute of limitations under 60513
B: holding that tolling accorded to persons of unsound mind continued during disability regardless that next friend might have sued
C: holding that the appointment of a conservator will not cease the tolling of the statute of limitations for those of unsound mind
D: holding that the express provisions of article 4590i exclude the unsound mind tolling provision of texcivprac  remcode ann  16001a2 and b
B.