With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to its preloss condition. Greenberger claims he can meet his burden of proof using the Lake Side Estimate, which was approximately $1,150 more than GEICO’s. Not so. The basic problem under Avery remains: Greenberger cannot produce the vehicle for examination to determine which (if any) of the allegedly omitted repair items was in fact necessary to fulfill GEICO’s contractual promise. That he obtained a higher estimate some months after the accident does not prove that GEICO’s payment would have failed to restore the car to its preloss condition. Stated differently, the issue is not what Greenberger could have paid to repair his car, but whether GEICO breached its contractual obligation. See Gaston v. Founders Ins. Co., 365 Ill.App.3d 303, 301 Ill.Dec. 513, 847 N.E.2d 523, 528 (2006) (<HOLDING>). A higher repair estimate may be evidence

A: holding that the amount necessary to repair a vehicle under an insurance contract refers to the amount the insurer must spend to repair the vehicle not the amount the insured decides to spend
B: holding that the insurer was entitled to credit against the owners claim in the amount paid to the mortgagee
C: holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount
D: holding that a hospital may not assert a statutory lien in an amount exceeding the amount it agreed to accept from the patients insurer
A.