With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the insured based on evidence that the insurance company’s litigation manager attested that, notwithstanding the insured’s notification delay of almost fifteen months, the insurance company would still have denied coverage had it been provided timely notice of the lawsuit. 261 Wis.2d 4, 660 N.W.2d 666, 683 (2003). Based on this evidence that “the timing of Bradley’s notice would not have changed the Insurance Company’s decision to deny its duty to defend,” the Fireman’s Fund court concluded “as a matter of law that the Insurance Company suffered no prejudice.” Id. Other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions. See Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters, 93 F.3d 529 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sunclipse, Inc., 85

A: holding that when an insurer denies coverage on grounds unrelated to late notice a strong presumption arises that the insurer has not suffered prejudice from the late notice
B: holding that an insurer can deny benefits based on late notice by the insured only when the insurer is prejudiced by the delay
C: holding that late notice of the bond did not excuse supplier from its obligation to comply with statutory notice requirements
D: holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage
A.