With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be read to require Safeco to pay a prejudgment interest award rendered against Page and (2) whether the language of Section 13-4-19(A) can reasonably be read to permit a surety to be hable for these types of awards under a surety bond issued pursuant to Section 13-4-18. It is not an issue of whether prejudgment interest should properly be awarded in the first place; that question was answered affirmatively in Albuquerque Testing. The Cibola County trial court stated that the reason it would refuse to award the prejudgment interest portion of the Albuquerque Testing judgment was that Davis had caused a delay in getting the Safeco case heard. We interpret this statement as a finding of a countervailing equity against awarding prejudgment interest. That J. 332, 188 A.2d 586, 595 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Davis showed that prejudgment interest was

A: holding that the decision of the bia will not be affirmed by this court unless the reasons for such a finding are made clear
B: holding surety for official bond liable for interest on money lost by misappropriation unless the borough receives reimbursement for both principal and interest it will not be made whole it will suffer a loss in the face of the suretys promise that it would not
C: holding that a declaratory judgment action was not the proper forum for the principal to make its bad faith argument which instead is properly asserted as a defense to the suretys claim against the principal for indemnification
D: holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes
B.