With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 299 Pa.Super. 199, 445 A.2d 523. Even assuming that Pennsylvania law would recognize that, under certain circumstances, conduct can constitute waiver of a bene ficiary designation on an insurance contract, the evidence of waiver in this case is neither sufficiently unambiguous nor specific enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mrs. Dougherty by her conduct waived her right to insurance proceeds as the named beneficiary under the policies. At best, Mrs. Dougherty’s conduct evidenced her willingness to relinquish ownership of the policies, which would not implicate her right to receive proceeds as' the named beneficiary under the policies. See Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Blight, 399 F.Supp. 513, 515 (E.D.Pa.1975), aff'd. 538 F.2d 319 (3d Cir.1976)

A: holding that agreement containing express language relinquishing claim of ownership of insurance policy did not waive rights to receive proceeds as designated beneficiary
B: recognizing that defendant may waive miranda rights
C: holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms
D: holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate
A.