With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Maryland Lloyds being such a carrier, the statute on its face precludes the award of attorney’s fees. Any confusion has been injected by the judiciary’s application, not by the Legislature’s writing. II The Fifth Circuit, in attempting to interpret the statute, has generally held that attorney’s fees ' cannot be recovered against the listed types of insurance companies. See Lafarge Corp. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 61 F.3d 389, 402-03 (5 th Cir.1995); Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc., 975 F.2d 1130, 1133 (5 th Cir.1992); see also Reynolds v. Allstate Ins. Co., 633 F.2d 1208, 1209 (5th Cir.1981)(reaching same result under Art. 2226). But one case seems to be contrary. See Gulf Chem. & Metallurgical Corp. v. Associated Metals & Minerals Corp., 1 F.3d 365, 373 (5 th Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit’s holdings in Bituminous

A: holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured
B: holding that insured may recover from its insurer any attorney fees incurred in successfully attempting to force the insurer to defend an action against the insured
C: holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith
D: holding that chapter 38 permits an insured to recover attorney fees from the insurer
D.