With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". signed. 84. The Court finds that Durham’s § 113(f)(1) contribution claim was timely filed and is not barred by CERCLA’s statute of limitations. B. Durham’s State-Law Claims 85. Defendants have also asserted as an affirmative defense that Durham’s state-law claims under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 22a-16 and § 22a-452 are barred by the applicable state statute of limitations. Defendants have raised three possible statute of limitations that could apply to Durham’s state-law claims: (i) Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-577, the three-year statute of limitations applicable to tort actions; (ii) Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-584, the two-year statute of limitations applicable to injuries to real or personal property caused by negligence or reckless or wanton misconduct; and (iii) Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52 441 (D.Conn.1994) (<HOLDING>)- 87. This Court has previously rejected the

A: holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations
B: holding that the plaintiffs claims under  22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations but declining to decide which statute to apply
C: holding that plaintiffs claims under  22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations regardless of whether  52577c  52582 or  52577 was applied
D: holding that section 1 claims of direct purchasers of buspirone products were not barred by the statute of limitations
B.