With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". personal counsel until just before the final mediation in March 2014 and did not settle with Ledcor and Admiral until shortly after that mediation. (See Def. Reply at 3- 4; Stip. Judgment; 2d Martens Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 18; Hudson Letter at 1.) Defendants offer no way for a reasonable fact-finder to trace Comhusker’s non-response in October 2007 and April 2008 through six years of litigation, defense, and mediation and find that non-response to have caused SQI to hire personal counsel and agree to a covenant judgment. Thus, even if Cornhusker violated WAC 284-30-330(2), which the court does not decide, Defendants present insufficient evidence to show that such violation caused injury to SQI’s business or property. See Hangman Ri Ins. Co., 16 F.Supp.3d 1240, 1254-55 & n. 5 (W.D.Wash.2014) (<HOLDING>). The court need not decide the legal issues

A: holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law
B: holding that a violation of washington insurance regulations is not a violation of ifca and collecting cases
C: holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
D: holding that an insured may maintain a cause of action under ifca for a violation of a washington insurance regulation listed in subsection 5 of ifca
B.