With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the New York Court of Appeals has noted that, according to § 4545's legislative history, “rising insurance costs” was one of the main reasons that motivated the legislature to modify the common-law collateral source rule. Oden v. Chemung County Industrial Development Agency, 87 N.Y.2d 81, 637 N.Y.S.2d 670, 673, 661 N.E.2d 142, 145 (1995). As employers generally cannot purchase insurance policies in New York to cover against intentional torts such as employment discrimination claims based on disparate treatment, this objective is not advanced in a case such as the instant one, and further argues against the application of § 4545(c) in this context. See American Management Association v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, 168 Misc.2d 971, 641 N.Y.S.2d 802, 807-808 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Cty.1996) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Defendant asserts that present value

A: holding that an insurance company may limit coverage only if the limitation does not contravene public policy
B: holding that liability insurance policy that expressly excluded coverage for the insureds intentional acts did not cover punitive damages award assessed against the insured and stating in dictum that public policy forbids insurance coverage for punitive damages
C: holding that new yorks public policy does not bar insurance coverage for disparate impact employment discrimination but noting that the state of new york insurance department has stated that it is against public policy to provide insurance coverage for intentional acts of discrimination
D: holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage
C.