With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". determine whether a federal court sitting in diversity has jurisdiction over a claim based on that right. See id. at 1315-17. Rather, the proper inquiry in such a case is whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. See id. at 1315, 1317, 1320. This analysis does not apply to the Article III justiciability issues raised in Ahearn. The existence vel non of a cause of action is a factor that the Supreme Court has incorporated into the Article III standing inquiry. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. at 2136. Reinforcing this approach is the unambiguous recognition by the Court that we are to measure standing according to the particular common-law, statutory, or constitutional claim asserted. See International Primate, 500 U.S. S.E.2d 900, 904-06 (1981) (<HOLDING>). 76 . The appellees cite a legion of cases

A: holding that present physical injury caused by exposure to asbestos is essential element of claims for mental anguish and medical monitoring costs
B: holding that injury does not occur upon exposure to asbestos but rather upon development of disease
C: holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted
D: holding that the duty to maintain an easement was upon those entitled to its use rather than upon the servient estate
B.