With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". brought either by the insured or by an injured third party is based not on the primary liability covered by the liability insurance policy but on the insurer’s failure to settle within policy limits or in good faith, the section 1332(c) direct action proviso does not preclude diversity jurisdiction. Beckham v. Safeco Insurance Co., 691 F.2d 898, 901-02 (9th Cir.1982); Velez v. Crown Life Insurance Co., 599 F.2d 471, 473 (1st Cir.1979). We hold that unless the cause of action against the insurance company is of such a nature that the liability sought to be imposed could be imposed against the insured, the action is not a direct action. Walker v. Firemans Fund Insurance Co., 260 F.Supp. 95, 96 (D.Mont.1966). See also Irvin v. Allstate Insurance Co., 436 F.Supp. 575, 577 (W.D.Okla.1977) (<HOLDING>); Bourget v. Government Employees Insurance Co.

A: holding that language requiring insurer to pay all sums which the insured  shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile includes recovery of exemplary damages under uninsured motorist provision of policy
B: holding that money received by plan participant pursuant to an uninsured motorist policy was within scope of plans subrogation provisions
C: holding action by insured against his own insurer under uninsured motorist provisions of policy not a direct action within section 1332c proviso
D: holding workers compensation insurer deemed by section 1332c to be citizen of state of which insured is citizen in suit brought by insureds injured employee
C.