With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". policy expired at the end of 1969, and because Galaxy knew that Canadian denied coverage in the 1970 personal injury actions resulting from the plant fumes, Canadian asserts that this declaratory judgment action should have been brought to determine liability for coverage before now. Galaxy knew in 1969 that Canadian contested coverage regarding the fumes, and in fact filed a declaratory judgment action to determine the parties’ rights. That action was settled. Canadian now asserts that plaintiffs should have proceeded to judgment in that action, and that the present action is time-barred. Canadian argues that the action accrued when Galaxy discovered that Canadian would not perform, under the “discovery rule” adopted in Maryland, see Levin v. Friedman, 271 Md. 438, 317 A.2d 831 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that the statute of

A: recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence
B: holding that the payments accrued
C: holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale
D: holding that the right of action accrued upon failure to perform contract
D.