With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". same terms”). Moustafa admitted during his EU,0 that: 1) he inaccurately stated on the applications that there were not any losses at the home in the prior three years, and that the home did not have any previous water damage; 2) there .were water stains throughout the home that he had not repaired, but simply painted over sometime between 2008 and 2011; and 3) he understood that by signing the application, including the statement of condition and applicant’s statement, he approved what was stated therein. These admissions, as well as the unrebutted testimony of an assistant vice president in the underwriting department, were sufficient-to prove that Moustafa’s misrepresentations were material and affected Omega’s decision to issue or renew the policy. See Kieser, 712 So.2d at 1262-64 (<HOLDING>). - The evidence also showed that it was only

A: holding that misrepresentations were material based in part on the affidavit of an insurance companys senior vice president of underwriting
B: holding foreign insurance company was supercorporation engaged in underwriting and selling insurance policies through its subsidiaries
C: holding that the fact that the insurance agents perform functions that are an essential part of the companys normal operations is a decisive factor
D: recognizing that a material misrepresentation or omission of fact in an insurance application relied on by the insurer in issuing a policy renders the coverage voidable at the insurance companys option
A.