With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Co. v. Coachella Valley Water Dist., 210 Cal. App.3d 484, 258 Cal.Rptr. 639, 643 (1989); Premier Ins. Co., 189 Cal.Rptr. at 659; Sabella, 27 Cal.Rptr. at 695, 377 P.2d 889 ("[W]here the facts on appeal are settled or not in dispute, the determination of proximate cause becomes a question of law.”) (citations omitted). 9 . That the deterioration might also be classified as "corrosion,” another excluded peril, is irrelevant in light of our conclusion that the "efficient proximate cause” is the fungicide manufacturers' negligence. Our conclusion is not inconsistent with California case law holding that "deterioration” or "corrosion" of pipes due to natural contact with the soil is excludable under a policy having "deterioration” and “corrosion” exceptions. See Brodkin, 265 Cal.Rptr. 710 (<HOLDING>). We believe that deterioration of pipes caused

A: holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else
B: holding that corrosion caused by contact between soil and foundation of the house is the type of loss the exclusion for deterioration was meant to cover
C: holding that a structurally unsound pool that caused water pipes to break and the foundation of a house to crack only supported a contract claim
D: holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction
B.