With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its provisions will be triggered “after a loss, provided [the insured] elect[s] to repair or replace the damaged dwelling.” (Policy at 33; Def.’s Mot. for JMOL at 8.) Travelers argues that the ARCP Endorsement “is not available until plaintiffs have replaced the destroyed dwelling and the cost of the replacement has exceeded the Dwelling limit.” {Id. at 33.) Nothing in the ARCP Endorsement indicates that “elect” should be interpreted to require an insured to actually complete the repair or replacement of their dwelling, rather than evincing an intent to repair or replace their dwelling. In fact, Travelers’ interpretation of the clause would read out the ARCP Endorsement’s use of the word “elect” entirely. Cf. Minich v. Allstate Ins. Co., 193 CaI.App.4th 477, 122 Cal. Rptr.3d 769 (2011) (<HOLDING>). At the very least, the clause is ambiguous,

A: recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions
B: holding it is settled that in construing an endorsement to an insurance policy the endorsement and the policy must be read together and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement
C: holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage
D: holding that an insured was not entitled to recover through their endorsement coverage where the policy actually required the insureds to repair rebuild or replace their  covered property before the endorsement would be triggered
D.