With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". know the nature and cause of his harm.”) (emphasis added). Numerous Maryland appellate cases are consistent with Pennwalt, and have recognized that a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of the harm and its probable cause. See, e.g., Frederick Rd. Ltd. P’ship, 360 Md. at 96, 756 A.2d 963 (stating, in a legal malpractice case, that “before an action is said to have accrued, a plaintiff must have notice of the nature and cause of his or her injury”) (emphasis added); United Parcel Service, Inc., 336 Md. at 579, 650 A.2d 226 (quoting Hecht, and recognizing that a claim accrues when the plaintiff “ ‘knows or should know of the injury, its probable cause, and ... [the defendant’s] wrongdoing.... ’ ”); Owens-Illinois v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107, 120-21, 604 A.2d 47 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Trimper v. Porter-Hayden, 305 Md. 31, 52, 501

A: holding that in an environmental contamination ease a cause of action accrues  when a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of his or her cause of action and of the identity of a party or parties who may be responsible for the injury
B: recognizing the cause of action
C: recognizing that a cause of action accrues when a reasonably diligent plaintiff ascertains the nature and cause of his injury
D: holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong
C.