With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". However, only a conflict that goes to the very subject matter of the litigation will defeat a party’s claim of representative status. Id. The Keys met their burden of establishing that they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Keys proved that they share with other class members the same declaratory-judgment and DTPA (Violation of Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code) claims based on identical contractual provisions set forth in a contract with LSRC. No antagonistic interests exist among class members nor has LSRC asserted any specific antagonistic interests between class members. See Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Leonard, 125 S.W.3d 55, 66 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. denied); see also Adams v. Reagan, 791 S.W.2d 284, 291 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1990, no writ) (<HOLDING>). The Keys have retained counsel with

A: recognizing that the linchpin of the adequacy requirement is the alignment of interests and incentives between the representative plaintiffs and the rest of the class
B: holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory
C: recognizing that the primary issue to be considered in whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class is a determination of whether any antagonism exists between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the remainder of the class
D: holding that the filing of a class action by a class representative without standing tolls the period of limitations with regard to all asserted members of the class and that the amendment of the complaint by the addition of a class member with standing relates back to the original complaint
C.