With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951). In Finn, the Court held that the plaintiffs claims against two insurance companies and an insurance agent were not “separate” because these claims alleged “a single wrong.” The Court reached this conclusion in part because “[t]he allegations [in the complaint against the first defendant] involve substantially the same facts and transactions as do the allegations [in the complaint against the other defendants].” Id. at 16, 71 S.Ct. at 541. By contrast, Boggs’ claims against Lewis and Safeco involve substantially different facts and transactions. Unlike the negligence claim against Lewis, the claim against Safeco “primarily involves the insurer’s conduct and other events occurring after the automobile accident.” Bailey v. Scholler, 630 F.Supp. 337, 339 (D.Mont.1986) (<HOLDING>). In Finn, the Supreme Court also based its

A: holding that under montana common law an insurer cannot be held liable for bad faith in denying a claim if the insurer had a reasonable basis for contesting the claim
B: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
C: holding that a plaintiffs negligence claim against a driver and her bad faith claim against the drivers insurer under mca  33182016 are separate and independent for purposes of 28 usc  1441c
D: holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second
C.