With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 32-03.2-02 does not infringe upon important substantive rights and is rationally related to the legitimate legislative goal of improving the method of determining and fixing responsibility for fault and damages. N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 directly apportions responsibility for damages based upon fault, and unless persons act in concert, they are responsible only for damages attributable to their percentage of fault. The' statute accomplishes its stated purpose of apportioning liability among those responsible for a victim’s injuries. [¶ 30] Although Haff contends apportionment of fault to unnamed parties imposes an unfair burden on him, under our modified comparative fault law the plaintiff is responsible for naming appropriate parties in a lawsuit. See Target Stores, 492 N.W.2d at 904 (<HOLDING>). We conclude N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 bears a

A: holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot
B: holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for negligently failing to claim contribution
C: holding that tolling does not apply to additional defendants who were not named in the class action
D: holding in absence of claim of concerted action under ndcc  3203202 defendant is not entitled to make third party claim for contribution against additional defendants not named by plaintiff
D.