With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Unionamerica Insurance Company Limited, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London subscribing to Lloyd’s Excess Liability Claims Made Policy No. N00060A96 — of the Missouri plaintiffs claim. When the insurers denied Amtrak’s request for coverage, it filed suit. Before the Court is defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which seeks the dismissal of Amtrak’s complaint on the ground that it failed to give timely notice of the Missouri case as required by each of the insurers’ policies. For the reasons below, the Court will grant defendants’ motion. BACKGROUND The facts underlying the present dispute are familiar and need not be repeated here, this being the third dispositive motion to have arisen from the parties’ disagreement regarding insurance coverage. See Amtrak, 365 F.3d at 1107 (<HOLDING>); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Lexington Ins.

A: holding that the missouri claim was not covered under an identical set of policies covering the period from october 1 1997 to september 30 1998
B: holding that public speech motivated by personal displeasure with policies was not covered by the first amendment
C: holding for similar though not identical reasons that commodities transactions are not covered by the act
D: holding that variable insurance policies are covered securities under slusa
A.