With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1992) (estopping a defendant from asserting a statute of limitations defense because it had stipulated to a sixty-day extension of the presuit screening period); Glantzis v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“Having lulled appellants into this false sense of security, no fairminded person could condone abandoning the arbitration and invoking the statute of limitations. That would seem to be ‘gotcha’ practice at its best.”); Olenek v. Bennett, 537 So.2d 160, 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (applying the doctrine against an estate where the attorney for the estate “accepted service of the complaint, after the substitution of the estate for the now-deceased defendant, and agreed to file an answer”); Martin v. Monroe County, 518 So.2d 934, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>); City of Brooksville v. Hernando County, 424

A: holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run
B: holding that when the department of insurance acknowledged that it had received an accident report of a claim within the statute of limitations  it was thereafter estopped after the expiration of the statute of limitations to deny receipt of the claim
C: holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations
D: holding that tolling the statute of limitations was appropriate when the eeoc acknowledged that it had advocated the mistaken interpretation relied upon by the plaintiff
B.