With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the undisputed allegations of the underlying complaint, there is no plausible way that Hanft could be legally entitled to the personal profit he gained, and therefore, application of the exclusion need not await final adjudication of the underlying action. Moreover, it is unlikely that the issue of whether Hanft was “legally entitled” to the loan proceeds will ever be adjudicated in the underlying action. In the underlying action, the Diehls have asserted causes of action against Hanft for rescission and breach of contract. Whether Hanft was “legally entitled” to the loan proceeds is not an element of either of these causes of action which the factfinder in the underlying case would be required to determine. See Shane v. Hoffmann, 227 Pa.Super. 176, 324 A.2d 532, 536 (Pa.Super.Ct 1974) (<HOLDING>) a false representation of an existing fact; 2)

A: holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original
B: holding basic elements of due process are notice and a right to be heard
C: holding elements of rescission are 1
D: recognizing that a claim under mcl 6002932 includes all actions to decide interests in land even when the claim involves fraud or rescission and holding that the 15year period of limitations applies to such an action rather than the shorter periods applicable to typical claims for fraud and rescission
C.