With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Co. v. Mendez, 213 Cal.App.3d 41, 50, 261 Cal.Rptr. 273 (Ct.App.1989). The allegations against Aquarius failed to indicate any such happening caused the claimed damage. That Appellants did not subjectively intend to be negligent is irrelevant, since Appellants’ conduct in testing the well and reporting the results was deliberate. See Delgado v. Interins. Exchange of Auto. Club of S. Cal., 47 Cal.4th 302, 311, 97 Cal.Rptr .3d 298, 211 P.3d 1083 (2009); Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Ct., 181 Cal.App.4th 388, 393, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 534 (Ct.App.2010) (“The insured’s subjective intent is irrelevant.”). The inaccurate report was not a fortuitous event, but a direct and natural consequence of the well test. See Ray v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 77 Cal.App.4th 1039, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 473 (Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Merced, 213 Cal.App.3d at 50, 261

A: holding that congress did not intend to give individuals a right to enforce  specific provisions of  nclb
B: holding congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for chapter 7 relief
C: holding no accident where roofer negligently recommended unsuitable materials because the recommendation was intentional even if roofer did not intend to convey bad advice nor intend the resulting consequences
D: holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc  1983
C.