With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the injury becomes known to the injured. Conway v. Huff, 644 S.W.2d 333 (Ky.1982); Gill v. Warren, 751 S.W.2d 33 (Ky.App.1988). Broadbent, supra, is distinguishable from this matter because in Broadbent there could not be certainty of damages until there was a final adjudication of the legal matter in question to show that there was in fact injury. Meade County Bank, supra, is also distinguishable because in that case one could not know if there was an injury until the bank sold a foreclosed house and saw that the debt owed to them was to be unpaid. In this matter, there was a definite point when Gardiner Entities should have known there were going to be damages. See Old Mason’s Home v. Mitchell, 892 S.W.2d 304, 307-308 (Ky.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Potential damages were apparent when MLS

A: holding issuance of building estimate constituted a denial of claim and triggered the running of the limitations period
B: holding that the statute of limitations in krs 413245 is triggered as soon as defects in workmanship are apparent
C: holding in a legal malpractice case the statute of limitations is not triggered by a potential injury until the underlying lawsuit is resolved
D: holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional
B.