Amy owned a condominium directly above Miguel. Amy failed to take proper care of some plumbing problems, and on several occasions, Amy's plumbing leaked into Miguel's apartment and caused property damage. Both Amy and Miguel had signed a condominium association agreement providing that each tenant would pay for any damage caused; that the agreement could be enforced by the management of the association or, in a proper case, by an aggrieved owner; and that adherence to the agreement was required "for the benefit of the Association and any person acquiring or owning an interest in the property." The association itself refused to sue Amy in order to recover damages to reimburse Miguel. Therefore, Miguel sued Amy himself. Amy claimed that Miguel had no standing to sue. Which of the following is the most likely result of the dispute if the court follows Allan v. Nersesova, the case in the text involving a similar issue? A. That the agreement between Amy and the association addressed issues involving intentional wrongdoing, such as out-of-control parties, not issues involving utilities, and that Miguel, therefore, could not sue.
B. That Miguel could proceed but only if he could convince the association to join its lawsuit with his.
C. That Miguel had standing based on the association's failure to act, but that he nevertheless had no right to bring suit because he was not an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Amy and the association.
D. That Miguel was an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Amy and the association, but that he had no right to sue because he nevertheless lacked standing.
E. That Miguel was an intended beneficiary of the agreement between Amy and the association, that he had standing to sue, and that under the terms of the agreement, the association's failure to act gave him the right to proceed.