With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 52 . The Court finds that the facts of this case are distinguishable from the cases relied by plaintiffs. For example, in Nicolau, there was evidence of no reasonable basis to deny plain tiffs’ claim because the insurer had either relied on an expert’s report that the carrier knew “was not objectively prepared,” or because "the insurer’s reliance on the report was unreasonable.” 951 S.W.2d at 448. Likewise, in State Fire & Cas. Co., v. Simmons, 963 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Tex.1998), the testimony of the insurer’s own experts, as well as its own internal documents, established the deficiencies in the company's review of the plaintiffs’ claim (i.e., the plaintiffs’ fire loss claim was immediately deemed “suspicious;” and the insurer fai d 818, 826 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). 54 . See Muniz v. State Farm Lloyds, 974

A: holding that an insurer had conclusively established a reasonable basis for denying a claim when it relied on an experts opinion even though another expert had expressed a conflicting opinion
B: holding that the evidence relied on by the insurer need not include the opinion of an examining physician
C: holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
D: holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others
A.