With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Accordingly, the court concludes that Travelers is not estopped by its actions from refusing to indemnify RK under the sue and labor clause.’ Moreover, even if waiver or estoppel applied, it would not change the results on the facts of this case. In Reliance, the Fifth Circuit found coverage under the policy for the mitigation costs the yacht’s owner incurred. In contrast here, the court has already determined that RK’s expenses to address faulty workmanship or defective materials are excluded under the policy. Accordingly, applying estoppel in the manner that RK suggests would i as entitled to compensation for efforts to mitigate damages by finding other work following breach of construction contract); Technical Computer Servs., Inc. v. Buckley, 844 P.2d 1249, 1255 (Colo.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Ballow v. PHICO Ins. Co., 878 P.2d

A: holding evidence of money earned from another employer was proper to reduce damage from breach of employment contract
B: holding that employer may use afteracquired evidence of resume fraud to avoid liability for breach of an employment contract if it can show that it had the power to void the contract due to reliance on material misrepresentations even where the employer was unaware of that power when the breach occurred
C: holding that where there was a breach of contract accompanied by aggravating factors that it was proper to treble the breach of contract damages
D: holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract
A.