With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". But see Tacon Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 860 F.Supp. 385, 388 (S.D.Tex.1994), concluding that there is no special relationship between a bond obligee and a payment bond surety and that such a surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith and fair dealing akin to that in Arnold. We conclude in section III, infra, that the Texas Legislature did not intend to include suretyship as the “business of insurance” for all purposes under the Insurance Code. The differences between suretyship and insurance merit consideration, and we therefore find the reasoning of Dodge and similar cases unpersuasive. United Pac. Ins. Co., 884 P.2d at 1137 (assuming without discussion that sureties owe duty of good faith in reliance on Dodge); Szarkowski, 404 N.W.2d at 504-06 (<HOLDING>). The contract between MUD and Underground in

A: holding that an insurers violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was actionable under the consumer protection act
B: holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees
C: holding without discussion that compensated sureties should be treated as insurers and that all insurers owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing
D: holding that duty of good faith and fair dealing did not extend to thirdparty claimant
C.