With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of contra proferentem to resolve the ambiguities in the insurance contract. E.g., Lee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala., 10 F.3d 1547, 1551 (11th Cir.1994). “Application of this rule requires us to construe ambiguities against the drafter.... ” Id. In doing so, we must conclude that Billings’s organically based OCD does not fall within the policy’s mental illness limitation. See Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining that “[b]ecause of the rule that ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the insured, if either a cause or a symptom of the disease were physical and caused the disability in whole or in part, then” the disease does not fall within the mental illness limitation); Phillips, 978 F.2d at 310-11, 314 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

A: holding that upon applying the doctrine of contra proferentem the insureds organically based illness does not fall within the mental illness limitation as a matter of law
B: recognizing attorneys mental illness as grounds for relief under rule 60b6
C: holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling
D: holding that a mental illness limitation containing the exact language at issue in this case is ambiguous because it does not specify whether a disability is to be classified as mental by looking to the cause of the disability or to its symptoms and thus construed in favor of the insured does not encompass organically based illnesses
A.