With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". L.B. Corporation conducted significant repairs of the building, leaving it with what it claims was “the functional equivalent” of a new building by early 1996. Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition, Docket No. 46, at 9. After these repairs, plaintiff asserts that defendant Schweitzer-Mauduit negligently over-pumped from Well # 5, causing further damage to this building, which plaintiff had to repair all over again in 1998. Whatever President Garrity’s views of “the way things were going” in August, 1995, the record as viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff contains nothing to indicate that the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs tort claims for damage sustained after March 19, 1996. See Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc. v. Black Diamond Equip., Ltd., 41 F.Supp.2d 70, 72 (D.Mass.1999) (<HOLDING>). 2. Chapter 93A for Subsidence. Defendants

A: holding that plaintiffs do not lose their right to sue for damages sustained within statute of limitations period by failing to sue on earlier incidents in timely manner
B: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
C: holding that employers have standing to sue
D: recognizing a childs right to sue for wrongful death pursuant to ksa 60515 when mother could not sue because her statute of limitations had lapsed
A.