With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for Fireman’s Fund, it was never a party to the state court action. Plaintiffs claim that Fireman’s Fund is an agent of Enterprise does not change this simple fact. Thus, Fireman’s Fund is a new party to these proceedings. Plaintiff argues that Enterprise was only dismissed upon its counsel’s representations that it was self-insured and provided $1,000,000 in “available liability limits” for Ms. Wilson. Having reviewed the letter of Enterprise’s counsel to Plaintiffs counsel, the court finds that counsel made no representation in that letter that it would provide coverage for Ms. Wilson. Instead, counsel’s letter merely confirmed that Ms. Wilson selected supplemental liability protection with limits of $1,000,000. Thus, Fire Insurance Exchange v. Bell by Bell, 643 N.E.2d 310 (Ind.1994) (<HOLDING>), is inapposite. The court finds that this

A: holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16
B: holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal
C: holding had a right as a matter of law to rely on material misrepresentations of defense counsel that defendant would pay the policy limits
D: holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage
C.