With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Michael M. Hachigian appeals a summary judgment in favor of Transcontinental Insurance Co. (“Transcontinental”) in a diversity action alleging the breach of an insurance contract and a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. We affirm the grant of summary judgment. Hachigian’s malpractice insurance policy covered “claims made against [Hachigian] and reported to [Transcontinental] during [the] policy term.” The policy defined “claim” as “the receipt of a demand for money or services, naming [insured] and alleging a wrongful act.” Because California’s notice-prejudice rule does not apply to “claims made” policies, the terms of Transcontinental’s contract with Hachigian should be strictly enforced. See Burns v. International Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Accord Helfand v. National Union Fire Ins.

A: holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings
B: holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings
C: holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims
D: holding that noticeprejudice rule does not apply to claimsmade policies
D.