With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in contravention of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent. In Insurance Company of the West, the Federal Circuit appropriately described the relationship between a payment-bond surety and a subcontractor. In delineating the rights of sureties with respect to the recovery of funds retained by the government, however, the language from Insurance Company of the West is incomplete and does not convey the holdings of prior Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and Court of Claims decisions. See Nova Casualty, 69 Fed.Cl. at 295-96. Those prior opinions reasoned that a surety that discharges all of its obligations under the payment bond is also equitably subrogated to the rights of the prime contractor, whose debts the surety has satisfied. See, e.g., Pearlman, 371 U.S. at 141, 83 S.Ct. 232 (<HOLDING>); U.S. Fid. & Guar., 475 F.2d at 1381-82; Home

A: holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee
B: holding in part that a paymentbond surety is entitled to the benefit of the equitable rights of both the contractor had the contractor completed performance and paid his laborers and materialmen and the subcontractors
C: holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety
D: holding that the condominium association was not a thirdparty beneficiary of contracts between the owner and contractor of the condominium building and between the general contractor and the subcontractors
B.