With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Wilson, 716 So.2d 1160 (Ala.1998). The present case, while factually somewhat similar, is clearly distinguishable from Ex parte Hood. In Ex parte Hood, the defendant failed to give notice of its intention to enforce the arbitration agreement until three months after the case had been removed to the federal court and two months after the parties’ counsel had met to discuss how the federal litigation would proceed. This Court stated: “We might assume that if [the defendant] Golden had immediately followed its removal with service of its answer pleading an arbitration defense, such action would have been sufficient to put Hood on notice that Golden still intended in the federal court to reserve its right to seek arbitration. Cf. Terminix Int’l Co. v. Jackson, 669 So.2d 893, 896 (Ala.1995) (<HOLDING>). Filing an answer at such a time might have

A: recognizing lack of ripeness on whether arbitration will provide reasonable compensation where plaintiff did not allege or establish that it had been injured by actual arbitration under the statute
B: holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second
C: holding that the plaintiff did not establish a waiver where the defendants answer had put the plaintiff on notice of an arbitration defense
D: holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time
C.