With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Essex Ins. Co. v. Bhavan, Inc., 2002 WL 1398551, at *1-4 (N.D.Tex. June 26, 2002) (victim shot by an unknown assailant while in insured’s parking lot; court held that assault and battery exclusion precluded coverage for negligence action against insured); Audubon Indem. Co. v. Patel, 811 F.Supp. 264, 264 (S.D.Tex.1993) (“Upon reviewing the insurance policy and the assault and battery exclusion, this Court finds that, as a matter of law, the insurance policy excludes any coverage arising out of the assault and battery committed upon [victim] and his wife [in insured’s motel room] even if the legal theory for which [the insured] is found liable is negligence.”); Burlington Insurance Company v. Mexican American Unity Council, Inc., 905 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, no writ) (<HOLDING>). As applied here, Mitchell’s claims in the

A: holding that a sexual assault on a youth homes resident was excluded from an insurance policys coverage by an assault and battery exclusion notwithstanding that the claim was couched in negligence
B: holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two
C: holding that coverage arguably existed under an insurance policy for claims against an employer and employees for an alleged assault and battery of bar patrons and that the insurer had a duty to defend
D: holding that claims were clearly excluded from coverage under assault and battery exclusion and therefore insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify
A.