With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 268 (1989) and Hoechst Celanese v. National Union Ins. Co., Del.Super., 623 A.2d 1133 (1992). Both of those cases were insurance coverage declaratory judgment actions. In Monsanto, the excess carriers claimed they were under no obligation to pay because the insured had not exhausted the primary coverage. Because of the strong enough possibility of exhaustion of primary coverage, this Court found the declaratory action against the excess carriers to be ripe. Monsanto, 565 A.2d at 273. The Court in Hoechst noted the strong enough possibility that primary coverage would be exhausted, even though it had not yet been, and found the insured’s declaratory judgment action ripe. Hoechst, 623 A.2d at 1139-40. Compare Playtex Family Products v. St. Paul Surplus, Del.Super., 564 A.2d 681 (1989) (<HOLDING>). In this case, primary coverage has been

A: holding a court may not award punitive damages
B: holding that awards of punitive damages in toxic shock syndrome causes being speculative none had been awarded and consequent thorny unresolved problems of choice of law issues made a declaratory judgment action involving coverage of punitive damages not ripe
C: holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision
D: holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law  must yield to federal limitations
B.