With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2012 WL 4344571, *3 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 21, 2012) (Moore, J.); see also Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 645 N.Y.S.2d 433, 668 N.E.2d at 406 (equating “arising out of’ and “based on” for purposes of insurance policy interpretation). Thus, the conversion claims, and any liability incurred as a result, plainly arose out of the TCPA-violating fax advertisements in this case. See Policy at 44. As such, the conversion claims are excluded from coverage by the TCPA Exclusion, and Plaintiff therefore owes no duty to indemnify Med Waste for them. Furthermore, the Policy states that “[w]here there is no coverage under this policy, there is no duty to defend.” Id. at 25; see also Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Dania Dist. Centre, 763 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1366 (S.D.Fla.2011) aff'd, 513 Fed.Appx. 890 (11th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Having found that both the TCPA claims and

A: holding that where claims are cast wholly within policy exclusion there is no duty to defend
B: holding that duty to defend ends when it is apparent there is no potential for coverage
C: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
D: holding that there is a duty to defend if any of the complaints allegations fall within the risk covered by the policy
A.