With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Covenant Coal Corp., 977 F.2d 895, 897 (4th Cir.1992) (“The majority of courts to address the issue have refused to construe section 301 in such a way as to allow [tortious interference claims against non-signatories.]”); Carpenters Local Union No. 1816 v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc., 690 F.2d 489, 501 (5th Cir.1982) (“[CJourts have almost unanimously held that a section 301 suit may be brought for violation of a labor contract only against those who are parties to the contract at issue.”). Although there are some variations in phrasing, the circuits are almost unanimous in rejecting LMRA jurisdiction over a claim such as Granite Rock’s claim against IBT. See Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561, 572 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Covenant Coal, 977 F.2d at 897 (declining to

A: holding that at a minimum the defendant must have breached some duty created by a labor contract to be liable for a violation under section 301a
B: holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981
C: holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend
D: holding that in order for a claim to be reasonably ascertainable the debtor must have in his possession at the very least some specific information that reasonably suggests both the claim for which the debtor may be liable and the entity to whom he would be liable
A.