With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". policies, shortly after implantation. They assert that this ruling is inconsistent with the scientific fact-accepted by both the insurers and 3M — that implants do not cause disease. They argue the court should have held that injuries occurred shortly before the underlying plaintiffs experienced overt symptoms. The occurrence policies provide indemnity for “all sums” that 3M becomes legally obligated to pay as damages as a result of an “occu t the question of when injury first occurred was not previously decided in the litigation between 3M and the underlying plaintiffs. In some situations, critical coverage issues may not be resolved in the actions underlying the insureds liability for a judgment. See, e.g., Brown v. State Auto. & Cas. Underwriters, 293 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Minn.1980) (<HOLDING>). Such is the case here, where the insured

A: holding that issue of whether dismissal was with or without prejudice becomes ripe only when new action is filed and issue is raised the court in the new action should decide the issue
B: holding that where issue of intent to injure was not necessary or essential issue in previous action it was nevertheless material fact for litigation in coverage action
C: holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it  
D: holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendants intent to injure
B.