system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: hazardous chemicals and that there is a potential in the work place for accidental discharge of those products does not constitute an 'intentional act’ under Louisiana law." 34 .Jernigan v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 989 F.2d 812, 816 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 868, 114 S.Ct. 192, 126 L.Ed.2d 150 (1993). See generally, the second opinion in the case of Mitchell v. Exxon Corp., 907 F.Supp. 198 (M.D.La.1995). In this opinion, the Court discussed the trend of lawyers who attempt to avoid statutory tort immunity in industrial accidents. In Mitchell, the plaintiffs argued that Exxon Corp. intentionally blew up its east coker unit at Exxon's Baton Rouge refinery. This proposition, the Court said, is "reductio ad absurdum.” 35 . Bourque v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., 906 F.Supp. 348 (M.D.La.1995) (<HOLDING>); Mitchell v. Exxon Corp., 860 F.Supp. 332 Options: A. holding that an injured workers initial election to seek state compensation does not implicate the exclusivity provision to preclude the worker from later seeking compensation under the longshore act B. holding that were the court to find fraudulent joinder as to a nondiverse defendant on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of that defendant and a nondiverse defendant a refusal later in the proceedings to give judgment for the diverse defendant on the same grounds in turn would require the court to revisit a ruling that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined C. holding that a worker who was injured when his hand was caught in a plastic press and burned by molten polyvinyl chloride could not establish a cause of action against a nondiverse defendant under the intentional act exception to workers compensation exclusivity and therefore the nondiverse defendants coworkers were fraudulently joined D. holding employee who suffered damages as a result of fire and explosion that occurred on the job could not establish a cause of action against nondiverse coemployee defendants under the intentional act exceptions to the workers compensation exclusivity provision and therefore defendant coemployees were fraudulently joined E. holding that plaintiffs had not fraudulently joined nondiverse defendants where the plaintiffs claims were based on respondeat superior if no cause of action can be stated against the nondiverse defendants for their alleged torts no case exists against defendant new england for example if a statute of limitation has run on a claim against a nondiverse defendant it necessarily has run for new england accordingly the arguments offered by new england to prove fraudulent joinder simultaneously show that no case can be made against the diverse defendant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a worker who was injured when his hand was caught in a plastic press and burned by molten polyvinyl chloride could not establish a cause of action against a nondiverse defendant under the intentional act exception to workers compensation exclusivity and therefore the nondiverse defendants coworkers were fraudulently joined