With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". expressly or under California rules for interpretation of ambiguity in insurance contracts. The district court granted Safeco’s motion to dismiss and Minkler timely appealed. II. The Certified Question We certify the following issue to the California Supreme Court: Where a contract of liability insurance covering multiple insureds contains a severability-of-interests clause in the “Conditions” section of the policy, does an exclusion barring coverage for injuries arising out of the intentional acts of “an insured” bar coverage for claims that one insured negligently failed to prevent the intentional acts of another insured? If the California Supreme Court decides the certified question, we will accept and rely on the Court’s decision in any furt ss. 240, 496 N.E.2d 158, 161 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The California Supreme Court has never

A: holding that a policy exclusion applicable to any insured unambiguously barred coverage despite inclusion of severability clause
B: holding that the term any insured was ambiguous in light of a severability clause and construing the contract against the insurer finding coverage
C: holding that insured may recover from its insurer any attorney fees incurred in successfully attempting to force the insurer to defend an action against the insured
D: holding that when the insured brings an action for a declaration of coverage and prevails absent a bad faith denial of coverage by the insurer attorneys fees incurred by the insured in the prosecution of that action are not incurred at the request of the insurer
B.