With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. We reverse this workers’ compensation order denying appellant’s claim on the ground that it was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The claim, which was filed on November 19, 1992, was filed within two years of appellant’s last injurious exposure to certain herbicides and pesticides at work. See Tokyo House, Inc. v. Hsin Chu, 597 So.2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (on mot. for clarification) (stating that in repeated trauma or exposure cases, an accidental injury may result from the cumulative effect of multiple exposures or traumas, which constitute repeated accidents); City of Miami v. Tomberlin, 492 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). REVERSED and REMANDED for further

A: holding that insurance coverage in the context of asbestosrelated diseases is triggered by exposure exposure in residence and manifestation
B: holding that a prior release of all claims on account of bodily injuries known and unknown and which have resulted or may in the future develop barred the petitioners claim for laterdiscovered injuries
C: holding that although claimant was aware of lung and hearing injuries caused by exposure to noise and pollution at work as early as 1970 his 1984 claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because his injuries resulted from ongoing exposure when he filed the claim
D: holding that the plaintiff was not barred by hrs  3865 from seeking common law tort remedies against his insurer for injuries caused by the insurers  outrageous and intentional denial of medical benefits and disability payments  because such injuries were not  work injuries  within the scope of hrs chapter 386
C.