With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1973, the day the statute of limitations expired, the carrier sent claimant a denial letter. In affirming the Commission’s finding of estoppel, the supreme court stated: "Petitioner’s uncontroverted testimony shows that the representatives of respondent’s insurance carrier discussed his claim with him and did not advise him that the limitations period was about to run. The fact that petitioner withheld filing an application for adjustment of claim until receipt of the letter denying liability would support a finding that petitioner relied upon the conduct of the insurance carrier’s representatives. *** [W]e cannot say that the finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Kaskaskia Constructors, 61 Ill. 2d at 535. See also Herlihy Mid-Continent Co., 252 Ill. App. 3d at 217 (<HOLDING>). Unlike the cases discussed above, it was not

A: holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations
B: holding the recoupment doctrine could allow a spouse to assert an ecoa affirmative defense against a creditor even after the statute of limitations had run
C: holding that when the department of insurance acknowledged that it had received an accident report of a claim within the statute of limitations  it was thereafter estopped after the expiration of the statute of limitations to deny receipt of the claim
D: holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run
D.