With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ann. § 554.002 which placed on the insurer the burden of proving any “avoidance or affirmative defense” to coverage, did not legislatively overrule an insured party's duty to allocate. Id. at 303. According to the court, concurrent causation is not an “avoidance or affirmative defense.” Id. Instead, concurrent causation “is a rule which embodies the basic principle that insureds are entitled to recover only that which is covered under their policy....” Id. Thus, under Wallis, once testimony of concurrent causes has been offered into the record, the insured has the burden of allocating the damages among the various causes. See id.; see also State Farm Lloyds v. Kaip, No. 05-99-01363-CV, 2001 WL 670497 (Tex.App.-Dallas, June 15, 2001, pet. denied) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). 24 . The very wording of the opinion makes

A: recognizing there can be concurrent proximate causes of accident
B: holding that the insureds own testimony which gave rise to the possibility of concurrent causation created a burden on the insured to allocate the damages between the various causes
C: holding that the insureds ordinary burden to allocate a verdict between covered and noncovered claims does not shift to the insurer unless the insurer had an affirmative duty to defend the underlying claims
D: holding that regardless of the subjective belief of the insured the record established a basis to believe that the insured had committed an act that could give rise to a claim under the policy
B.