With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hudson v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., Del.Supr., 569 A.2d 1168, 1171 (1990). Section 2118 is entitled to liberal construction in order to achieve its purpose. Cicchini v. State, Del.Super., 640 A.2d 650, 652 (1993), aff'd, Del.Supr., No. 249, 1993, 1994 WL 148107, Holland, J. (Apr. 4, 1994). Also, in the absence of statutory language permitting a contract policy exclusion of a non-contact injury from PIP coverage, such an exclusion in the case of a pedestrian is invalid in Delaware. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Grimm, Del.Super., C.A. No. 85A-AP-18, 1986 WL 1271, Taylor, J. (Jan. 14, 1986); Brown v. Scott, Del.Super., C.A. No. 79C-MY-81, Christie, J. (Oct. 30, 1980) (relying on Abramowicz v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., Del.Super., -31, 1986 WL 15440, Balick, J. (Sept. 11,1986) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,

A: holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff who was approaching a car to enter it as a passenger was occupying a motor vehicle
B: holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle
C: holding that police officer plaintiff who was injured approaching a vehicle he had stopped from the rear which lurched backward was an occupier of a motor vehicle under either a geographic perimeter or vehielerelatedtask test
D: holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle
C.