With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". theory never applies to instances of continuous, progressive property damage, Appellants maintain that this Court should disavow the holding as an incorrect statement of law. Thus, Appellants urge this Court to announce the applicability of the multiple trigger theory of liability insurance coverage to cases involving “continuous, progressive property damage over successive policy periods,” contending that this will align Pennsylvania jurisprudence with the weight of authority from other jurisdictions. Brief of Appellant at 30. Appellants cite cases from jurisdictions that applied the multiple trigger theory to coverage disputes involving continuous, progressive property damage. See e.g. Wisconsin Electric Power Co. v. California Union Ins. Co., 142 Wis.2d 673, 419 N.W.2d 255 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co.,

A: holding that joint and several liability for entire actual loss could have been imposed on each fraud defendant as condition of probation
B: holding that the continuous injury trigger of coverage should be applied to third party claims of continuous or progressively deteriorating bodily injury or property damage
C: holding that continuous property damage sustained by a dairy herd over a twelve year period caused by a negligently installed power supply emitting stray voltage warranted application of the continuousmultiple trigger principle of liability whereby each insurer on the risk during the twelveyear period was required to respond on a joint and several basis
D: holding insurer on risk during period of alleged exposure liable for policyholders defense in proportion that period on risk bears to total period of alleged exposure policyholder must bear prorata share of costs for uninsured periods
C.