With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the owner, the facts did not negate the availability of the vehicle to the non-owner. Id. at 189, 541 S.E.2d at 777. In Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bullock, 21 N.C. App. 208, 203 S.E.2d 650 (1974), this Court, using the Whaley availability and frequency analysis, found that the non-owner made “regular use” of a vehicle where she used the vehicle to transport the owner to medical appointments and to run errands for the owner, used the vehicle to drive herself to and from work, usually received permission from the owner to use the vehicle for trips made for her personal benefit, kept the vehicle at her residence, and paid for gasoline and oil for the vehicle. Id. at 209-10, 203 S.E.2d at 651. See also Devine v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 19 N.C. App. 198, 198 S.E.2d 471 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Here, Breedlove’s auto policy barred coverage

A: holding that continued possession and unrestricted use constitutes regular use
B: holding language of lease did not indicate implied covenant of continued use
C: holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process
D: holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate  an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings
A.