With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and valid, despite the fact that the Baltimore City Circuit Court has ordered a new trial in the Wallace case, collateral estoppel would not apply here because the issues litigated in the Wallace case are not identical to the one now before the court. Whether City Homes was negligent and/or made a negligent misrepresentation with respect to the Property is not the same fact or issue as whether the lead poisoning alleged in the Wallace case was accidental. Although the same subject matter is involved, the questions are not identical for purposes of collateral estoppel, as the jury in the Wallace case was not asked to decide whether City Homes actually foresaw or expected the Wallace children’s injuries. See, e.g., Sedlack v. Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., 134 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, City Homes is not precluded from

A: holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident
B: holding that burden was on nonmoving party to show issue was not litigated where moving party presented supreme court opinion showing issue had been litigated
C: holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident
D: holding that where the dispositive issue in an administrative proceeding was whether an accident occurred as the plaintiff alleged it did collateral estoppel did not bar litigation of whether the accident was workrelated because that issue had not yet been litigated
D.