With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". National Union and Valspar’s compliance with the Program documents. Whether National Union breached any duty it owed to Valspar, or whether National Union and Valspar have been operating the Program in a manner that is contrary to the Program’s contractual language is irrelevant to the present inquiry. Rather, Continental seeks only a determination of what National Union’s and Valspar’s obligations under the Program are. Second, as explained below, in granting insurers that incur defense costs a right to seek contribution from other insurers, the Minnesota Supreme Court has granted standing upon parties such as Continental to seek an interpretation of the insurance policies of other insurers. 28 . See also Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 466 F.Supp.2d 533, 540 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (<HOLDING>); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Md. Cas. Co., 65

A: recognizing the cause of action
B: recognizing a cause of action for pro rata contribution when a coinsurer pays more than its fair share for a loss covered by multiple insurers
C: recognizing cause of action
D: recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium
B.