With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". directly against a third-party tortfeasor. The trial court granted Appellees’ preliminary objections. Based on the Superior Court’s decision in Reliance Insurance Company v. Richmond Machine Company, 309 Pa.Super. 430, 455 A.2d 686 (1983), the trial court explained that only the injured employee has the right of action against a third-party tortfeasor and not the employer/insurer. Emphasizing that the cause of action against the third-party tortfeasor exists for one indivisible wrong, the trial court held that the employer’s/insurer’s right of subrogation under Section 319 of the WCA must be achieved through an action brought in the name of or joined by the injured employee. Trial Court Opinion at 2 (citing Moltz v. Sherwood Bros., Inc., et al, 116 Pa.Super. 231, 176 A. 842, 843 (1935) (<HOLDING>)); Scalise v. F.M. Venzie & Co., et al., 301

A: holding that the right of the employerinsurer to subrogation against a tortfeasor must be achieved through a single action brought in the name of the injured employee either by joining the employer or insurance carrier as a party plaintiff or as a use plaintiff
B: recognizing a breachofduty action by an employee against a workers compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer
C: holding that insurance carrier for defendant contractor was real party in interest as to third party claim against stucco manufacturer when plaintiff homeowners assigned their right to sue for defects in their house to insurance carrier
D: holding that section 319s mandate that the employer is subrogated  to the extent of compensation payable does not mean that the sole right to recover from the tortfeasor is in the employer rather the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee and suit is to be commenced in his name
A.