With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is ripe for determination. We agree. Before supplementation of Hartford’s motion for summary judgment, it relied only upon Travelers Insurance Comp find, based upon the purported absence of a binding obligation to Feld-man, that Vansteen’s claims are insufficiently ripe for adjudication. Evidence attached to Vansteen’s motion for new trial and motion for reconsideration, submitted and considered with its motion for partial summary judgment, provided some evidence of its incurring at least $73,000 in attorney fees in the Skarbovik litigation. As discussed more fully below, the trial court considered Vansteen’s evidence when reconsidering Hartford’s motion for summary judgment. See K-Six Television, Inc. v. Santiago, 75 S.W.3d 91, 96 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet., mandamus denied) (<HOLDING>). Such evidence was sufficient to present a

A: holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment
B: holding that response costs can be necessary even though the agency that required cleanup never approved the response actions taken
C: holding permission to file a late response may be reflected in trial courts recital
D: holding that a party may not raise a new claim in its response to a dispositive motion
C.