With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". policy; Farmers failed to establish he had committed fraud or intended to deceive Farmers in violation of the policy’s concealment clause; and the extra-contractual claims concerning Farmers’s conduct involved a fact issue to be decided by the trier of fact. The trial court denied Perrotta’s motion for continuance and rendered summary judgment for Farmers. Summary Judgment Summary judgment is proper only when a movant establishes there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a (c); Randall’s Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex the insurance policy, we affirm summary judgment for Farmers on the contractual claims. We next consider Perrot .2d 704, 712 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Perrotta contended summary judgment on his

A: recognizing that withholding of removal claims must fail if petitioner is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the claims are based on the same factual predicate
B: holding extracontractual claims fail when denial of a claim is held to be appropriate
C: holding it is appropriate to apply a discount to a closely held corporation
D: holding that the fraudbased common law claims against the citco defendants fail for the same reason that the section 10b claims fail
B.