With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applied, and could apply only, to claims initiated after the effective date of the amendments. Id. at 621 (citing with approval Tilley v. USF Holland Inc., 325 S.W.3d 487, 494 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); Roller v. Steelman, 297 S.W.3d 128, 132 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009); Lawson v. Treasurer of Mo., 281 S.W.3d 851, 854 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009); Bennett v. Treasurer of Mo., 271 S.W.3d 49, 53 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008)). As such, our Supreme Court has found that Schoemehl benefits are available when a dependent moves to substitute -for a deceased claimant so long as the claimant's claim was initiated before the 2008 statutory amendments, and so long as the claim was pending and was not final at the time of the claimant’s death and the request by the dependent to be substituted. Gervich, 370 S.W.3d at 622-24 (<HOLDING>); Strait v. Treasurer of Mo., 257 S.W.3d 600,

A: holding the appellant needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her husbands death fell within the terms of the insurance policy
B: holding that wife could receive permanent total disability payments after the death of her husband where the husbands claim was pending before the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments and was still pending at the time of his death even though husbands death occurred after the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments as wifes status as a dependent was subject to determination as of the time of husbands injury
C: holding that children could receive permanent total disability payments after the death of their mother where the mothers claim was pending before the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments and was still pending at the time of her death
D: holding that statute which became effective after claimants death but prior to the trial of wrongful death case was remedial constitutional and governed pending litigation proceedings that were pending when statute was enacted
B.