With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ins. Co., 709 P.2d 11 (Colo.Ct.App.1985), the Colorado Court of Appeals excused an insured’s failure to forward suit papers based on the insured’s reasonable belief that he was not covered under the policy. Id. at 15. The court stated that “[wjhere the insured, acting as a reasonably prudent person, believes he is not liable for the damage, a delay or failure to give the required notice under the policy is excused.” Id. The insured in Colard had been advised both by an agent of the insurer and by his attorney that he was not covered. Id. The court therefore held that the insured had acted as a reasonably prudent person in determining whether he had coverage, excusing his delay in notice. Id.; see also Barnes v. Waco Scaffolding & Equip. Co., 41 Colo.App. 423, 589 P.2d 505, 507 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Unlike Colard, the facts of this case belie

A: holding that a reasonable construction of an insurance policy excuses delayed notice where the insured has acted as a reasonably prudent person in deciding he is not liable for the accident
B: holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident
C: holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured
D: recognizing that a clause in an insurance policy was susceptible to a construction in favor of the insured but that such a construction would be unreasonable absurd and produce results never intended or contemplated by the parties
A.