With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". line of cases in which state courts have refused to allow an insured to be indemnified from liability resulting from the insured’s intentional causation of an injury. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mugavero, 79 N.Y.2d 153, 161, 589 N.E.2d 365, 369-70, 581 N.Y.S.2d 142, 146-47 (1992)(stating that the ordinary person “would be startled by the notion that [an insured] should receive insurance protection for sexually molesting [ ] children” and “in effect, be permitted to transfer the responsibility for his deeds onto the shoulders of other policyholders,” and holding that the insured was not entitled to indemnification because he intentionally caused the children’s injuries); Public Service Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goldfarb, 53 N.Y.2d 392, 400, 425 N.E.2d 810, 814, 442 N.Y.S.2d 422, 427 (1981)(<HOLDING>). The Goldfarb court concluded that allowing

A: holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies
B: holding that a further finding that the insured intended to injure the defendant would preclude any liability for the insurer for indemnification of compensatory or punitive damages
C: holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages
D: holding that indemnification by excess liability insurer for punitive damages imposed on drug manufacturer contrary to public policy
B.