With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1979) (allowing drawer to bring a conversion action when depositary bank accepted checks containing forged restrictive indorsements and the checks were accepted in violation of the restrictive indorsement); Sun ’n Sand v. United California Bank, 21 Cal.3d 671, 148 Cal.Rptr. 329, 346, 582 P.2d 920, 937 (1978) (allowing drawer to bring a claim of negligence against a depositary bank); Commercial Credit Corp. v. Citizens National Bank, 150 W.Va. 196, 144 S.E.2d 784 (1965) (finding that “the majority of cases hold that the drawer can sue the collecting or intermediary bank on implied contract for money had and received and omit suing the drawee bank, thus relieving the necessity of circuity of actions”); see also G.F.D. Enterprises, Inc. v. Nye, 37 Ohio St.3d 205, 525 N.E.2d 10 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Hartford maintains that “under Maryland law,

A: recognizing that the negligence cause of action is preserved under the ucc but denying recovery to a drawer in cases involving a forged drawers signature
B: recognizing negligent procurement to be a negligence cause of action
C: recognizing the cause of action
D: recognizing cause of action
A.