With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is any credible evidence to support it. Morden v. Continental AG, 2000 WI 51, ¶ 38, 235 Wis. 2d 325, 611 N.W.2d 659. ¶ 41. We conclude that the court of appeals in this case misapplied the extrinsic evidence rule by allowing the jury to resolve the dispute over the proper application of the Assurance policy's language to the facts. ¶ 42. As support for the extrinsic evidence exception, the court of appeals relied on its own decision in Central Auto, in which it stated, "Construction of a written contract is normally a matter of law for the court, but where words or terms are to be construed by extrinsic evidence, the question is one for the trier of fact." Central Auto, 87 Wis. 2d at 19. Central Auto involved interpretation of a lease, rather than an insurance policy. Id. at 18-20 (<HOLDING>). The Central Auto court cited Pleasure Time,

A: holding that the question of whether a bankruptcy trustee or a putative lessor was entitled to the proceeds of an equipment sale depended on whether a true lease was involved when the lease is intended as a security interest article 9 applies however a bona fide lease is not affected by article 9
B: holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease
C: holding that jury should have received evidence from parties lease negotiations to determine intended meaning of term bookstore in the lease
D: holding that the damage for tenancy at sufferance during the holdover period was the monthly rent under the lease versus the apartments fair market value because the lease contained a provision requiring lease payments beyond the lease term
C.