With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". than reiterate the complaints voiced in earlier objections and have no substantial impact on the court’s decision. Similarly, the motion to accept opt out nunc pro tunc of class members George H. and Patsy T. Cramer establishes with striking detail that the Cramers acted in good faith and have a reasonable basis for not responding by the deadline, and it appears that the defendants will suffer little, if any, prejudice if the court heeds their request. Thus, their motion is granted. Cf. Orthopedic Bone Screw, 246 F.3d at 322-23 (setting forth factors for consideration in extending deadline and reversing lower court’s decision to exclude claimant from participation in class action settlement for failure to meet registration deadline); Burns v. Elrod, 757 F.2d 151, 155 (7th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>). 39 . The Third Circuit has stated that “it is

A: holding that a claim filed after the last date fixed for the filing of claims was not a covered claim and noting that the requirement in the statute that claims be presented before the filing deadline evidences an intent on the part of the legislature to provide a cutoff date after which the association is no longer obligated to accept claims
B: 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
C: holding that a motion court is compelled to dismiss late filed claims
D: holding that courts should exercise their discretion to permit the filing of late claims only when the equities on balance favor claimants and denying petitions to file late claims where they were filed more than 19 months after the deadline
D.