With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for a cause of action existed no later than when the Lexington policy limits were exhausted, and not when the ... declaratory judgment action regarding coverage was resolved at a later date.” Nevertheless, the Brokers’ motion was not supported by evidence establishing that the limits of the Lexington policies were exhausted more than two years before the Insureds filed suit. On appeal, the Brokers argue that because the Insureds are charged with knowledge of the policies’ contents, the challenged claims against Lexington accrued on the dates in 1993 and 1994 on which the Insureds purchased the respective policies. In support of this argument, the Brokers rely on Mauskar v. Hardgrove, No. 14-02-00756-CV, 2003 WL 21403464 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] June 19, 2003, no pet.) (mem.op.) (<HOLDING>). But see All-Tex Roofing, 73 S.W.3d at 415-16

A: holding that limitations on an insureds claims of negligent procurement negligent misrepresentation and violations of the insurance code and deceptive trade practices act began to run when insured purchased life insurance coverage and the discovery rule did not apply because the nature of the injury was not inherently undiscoverable
B: holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies
C: holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code
D: holding that negligent misrepresentation is not affirmative defense regarding avoidance of life insurance policies
A.