With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". regarding resulting damages were at least factual conclusions. Harrison asserted Methodist sustained damaged because it was required to reimburse Zurich for paying benefits for non-compensable injuries. Accordingly, Harrison’s contention regarding causation hinged on his assertion, “Zurich’s failure to satisfy the Warranties caused it to miss the deadline for contesting compensability because Zurich’s adjuster lacked the appropriate experience and was not properly supervised and because Zurich did not provide the customized claims programs that it promised.” However, Harrison provided no facts indicating Zurich’s purported inadequacies caused its failure to challenge com-pensability of the claims; instead, he merely made a bare assertion there was a causal connection. See id. at 587 (<HOLDING>). In fact, Harrison stated the assertions were

A: holding that cocaine seized pursuant to search of defendants car was not admissible under good faith exception because affidavit did not establish connection between car and criminal activity
B: holding plaintiff car owners averment in affidavit that certain actions by defendant mechanic caused damage to plaintiffs car were conclusory because she provided no factual support
C: holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car
D: holding car lessee specifically contracted with car lessor for liability for any and all loss or damage to rental car thus barring recovery from insurer under exclusion for liability assumed by contract
B.