With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In the instant case, Leafland contends that the trial court erred by deciding as a matter of law that the INA policy did not provide coverage for the diminution in value to Montgomery Towers. Leafland argues that the loss of value due to the presence of asbestos should be covered under the property coverage section of the policy because the policy was a comprehensive “all-risk” policy that did not specifically exclude coverage for diminution in value caused by the installation of asbestos. We hold that the diminution in value of Montgomery Towers due to the presence of asbestos installed during construction was not a covered loss within the meaning of the policy’s insuring clause. Cf. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 1435, 264 Cal.Rptr. 269, 275 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The policy’s property coverage insured

A: holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else
B: holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market
C: holding that where the real value of an anchoring system design is in the idea not in the physical plans that memorialize it any loss in value of the design represents a loss in the value of the idea which is not a loss of use of tangible property
D: holding that measure of restitution is victims loss not defendants gain
A.