With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". predictable precisely because it was discovered that past occurrences were likely to have set in motion injurious processes for which Keene could be held liable. [Id. at 1046.] Subsequent to the decision in Keene Corp., many jurisdictions have applied the continuous trigger theory in both asbestos and environmental contamination cases. See Zurich Ins. Co. v. Raymark, 118 Ill.2d 23, 112 Ill.Dec. 684, 514 N.E.2d 150 (Ill.1987) (applying continuous trigger theory to personal injury asbestos claims); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 662 F.Supp. 71, 76 (E.D. 68 Ill.App.3d 598, 205 Ill.Dec. 619, 643 N.E.2d 1226, 1257 (Ill.App.Ct.1994)(applying continuous trigger theory to asbestos-related property damage claims); GenCorp, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 104 F.Supp.2d 740, 749 (N.D.Ohio 2000)(<HOLDING>); See also Howard, supra, 22 Tort & Ins. L.J.

A: holding that the continuous injury trigger of coverage should be applied to third party claims of continuous or progressively deteriorating bodily injury or property damage
B: holding that property damage occurred when homeowners noticed damage not when house was improperly constructed
C: holding that continuous trigger will be applicable when environmental contamination claimant is able to show that damage like asbestosis occurred on continuing basis
D: holding that property damage occurred when mold contamination first manifested
C.