With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the policy language, the parents’ injuries are derivative of an “occurrence.” If the children had not been molested, the parents would have gone unharmed. Thus, the parents’ injuries do not amount to separate “occurrences” under the policies. See Crabtree v. State Farm Ins. Co., 632 So.2d 736, 738 (La.1994) (finding that while the wife’s claim for mental anguish constituted “bodily injury” separate from that suffered by her husband, entitling her to a separate “per person” limit of coverage, her claim was nevertheless subject to the “per accident” limit in the policy); Lantier v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 614 So.2d 1346, 1357 (La.Ct.App.1993) (concluding that spouses’ wrongful death suits were derivative of a single “occurrence”); Geico v. Fetisoff, 958 F.2d 1137, 1143 (D.C.Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 2. The Number of “Occurrences” Per Child

A: holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium
B: recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse
C: holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse
D: holding that while a spouse may have a legally independent claim for loss of consortium it is nevertheless derivative of the occurrence under the policy language
D.