With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the coverages of Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy No. CPP0666853, effective January 1, 1996; and No. CCC 438 7336, effective January 1, 1996, do not require insurer plaintiff Cincinnati Insurance Company to either defend or to indemnify insured defendant Venetian Terrazzo, Inc., for allegations in the judicial action Brockmiller Construction Co., Inc. v. Venetian Terrazzo Company, Inc., pending in the Circuit Court of Cape Gir-ardeau County, Missouri. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs of the action. 1 . The same result would be reached had Cincinnati argued, alternatively, that the losses in this case were not "property damage,” as defined in the policy. See Esicorp, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 266 F.3d 859, 862-64 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In Esicorp, Inc., id. at 863 n. 2, the Eighth

A: holding that use of tangible property must be proximate cause of injury and that property does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible
B: holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations
C: holding that under missouri law the term property damage defined as physical injury to tangible property does not cover losses due to the insureds negligent performance of contract work where the defective work does not cause accidental injury to surrounding property
D: holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property
C.