With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Housewares and Bekem agreed to remove an underground storage tank from the Lexington site. Housewares claims that this order “established, at most, General Housewares’ liability for part of the cost of removing the underground storage tank.” Appellant’s Brief at 13. We agree. Housewares, by agreeing to a cleanup of the Lexington site, assumed partial liability. This establishes, prima facie, that Housewares actually knew that it had incurred some liability at this site prior to the inception of the first National policy. On July 19, 1993, the EPA notified Housewares that it was a potentially responsible party (PRP) with regard to the Antrim site. The receipt of this notice does not establish actual liability. See Montrose, supra, 10 Cal.4th 645, 42 Cal. Rptr.2d 324, 913 P.2d at 904 (<HOLDING>). As its name suggests, this letter merely

A: holding that an unsworn letter was insufficient to contest a claim of exemption
B: holding that acts of improper maintenance were insufficient to defeat plaintiffs defective design claim
C: holding that appellants specific factual denial of receipt was sufficient evidence to defeat the presumption of receipt raised by a docket entry showing mailing
D: holding that receipt of a prp letter was insufficient to defeat coverage under the lossinprogress rule
D.