Problem: Georgia just moved from one state to another and contacted an insurance agent for homeowners coverage. She told her agent that she previously had full coverage and she wanted the same coverage on her new home and contents. The agent assured her she would have full coverage and issued Georgia a binder with a note on it saying "full coverage as in previous state." A year later, Georgia's home experienced water damage and she was denied coverage because she did not have a back-up of sewer and drain endorsement that she had on her previous policy. If Georgia sues her insurer, it is likely Select one: A. The courts will interpret the binder note in Georgia's favor because of ambiguous wording of full coverage and her intent to have the same coverage as she had in her prior state. B. She will not be able to use the binder to introduce evidence against the insurance contract because of the parol evidence rule. C. She will be denied coverage because she did not carry the endorsement. D. That the meaning of the binder cannot be determined even by application of all the rules of interpretation under UCC provisions.