With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sept. 22] with 26 Cal.App.3d at p. 627 [steel installed on Sept. 22].) The facts of Schrader Iron Works, however, did not require the court to address the issue of whether any waivable lien rights arose upon delivery. 4 A11 statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated. 5 E.g., Ensele v. Jolley (1922) 188 Cal. 297, 300 [204 P. 1085] (“in order to entitle a materialman to a lien as against the owner of premises . . . the materials must. . . also have been used therein”); Wilson v. Nugent (1899) 125 Cal. 280, 284 [57 P. 1008] (lack of finding materials furnished were used in building “fatal” to judgment); Roebling Sons Co. v. Bear Val. I. Co. (1893) 99 Cal. 488, 490 [34 P. 80] (quoting Bottomly); Silvesters. Coe Quartz Mine Co. (1889) 80 Cal. 510, 513 [22 P. 217] (<HOLDING>); Holmes v. Richet (1880) 56 Cal. 307, 310

A: holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent
B: holding that prospective buyer of used car could not recover under dealers uim endorsement because uim insurance is not for protection of vehicles but of persons
C: holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract
D: holding lien claimant could not recover for trackiron furnished for use in repairing mine but not actually used
D.