With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a products liability action as “being a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred”). In this context, the harm would have occurred only if the CGL insurance that Metro agreed to procure would have actually covered the injury suffered by Lin. Otherwise, Lin would have obtained an insurance policy that did not provide coverage for his surety’s claims against him, and the injury would have been the same regardless of whether Metro procured the insurance or not. Therefore, the more stringent causation standard of the current DTPA statute requires proof that the coverage sought was actually available in a CGL policy, as sought by Lin. See Stinson v. Cravens, Dargan & Co., 579 S.W.2d 298, 299-300 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1979, no writ) (<HOLDING>). This departure from the standards articulated

A: holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination
B: holding that when an insurance policy contains an antistacking clause the insurance company must obtain a written rejection of um coverage for each additional vehicle covered by a policy in order to clarify the insureds expectations and to make certain that the insured gets only what he or she has paid for
C: holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the legally obligated to pay provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds
D: holding that where a duty to obtain specified insurance coverage exists a plaintiff must prove that the loss is one insured against in some policy
D.