With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". could arise if the public construction project was “unreasonably prolonged.” Truck Terminal, 486 Pa. at 23 n. 8, 403 A.2d at 989 n. 8. In the temporary-obstruction scenario, therefore, the essential difficulty lies in ascertaining when the infringement upon reasonable access becomes unduly prolonged, or is otherwise accomplished in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Clearly, if the governmental entity arbitrarily obstructs access to the subject property in the sense that the interference is unnecessary and the project could have been completed just as conveniently without substantial harm to any property owner, the situation would come within the exception to the Truck Terminal rule for arbitrary deprivations. Cf. L-M-S Inc. v. Blackwell, 149 Tex. 348, 233 S.W.2d 286, 289-90 (1950) (<HOLDING>). Presently, however, although Ap- pellees

A: holding that a restaurant owner could only recover lost profits resulting from temporary street obstructions upon showing that placement of the obstructions was unreasonable or unnecessary
B: holding that lost profits were covered where the insureds product a motor used in a treadmill was defective and caused lost profits on the sale of the treadmills
C: holding that an unestablished business may recover lost prospective profits
D: holding that the plaintiffs attempted to recover lost profits which under the facts of the case were consequential damages
A.