With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an indemnitee’s own negligence. The phrase must be read in the context of the entire contract. If the contract warrants it, though, the use of the phrase “any and all” may indicate, as COSCO contends, that the parties intended an indemnitee be indemnified, even for the indemnitee’s own negligence. See, e.g., Economy Mechanical Industries, Inc. v. T.J. Higgins Co., 294 Ill. App. 3d 150, 155 (1997) (interpreting contract language which provided that “[indemnitor] will at all times protect, indemnify and save and keep harmless the [indemnitee] against and from any and all loss, cost, damage or expense, arising out of or from any accident or other occurrence” to provide indemnification for an indemnitee’s own negligence (emphasis omitted)); Rios v. Field, 132 Ill. App. 2d 519, 522 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Haynes v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 47 Ill. App.

A: holding that the clause any dispute that shall arise between the parties  with reference to the interpretation of this agreement or their rights with respect to any transaction involved was broad
B: holding that the use of the phrase any and all even if it is the sole descriptive reference to the cause of the injury claim or loss indemnified can render an agreement sufficiently broad to include indemnification for claims or injuries caused by indemnitees own negligence subject to any limitations in the agreement
C: holding that claims of breach of fiduciary duty negligence and fraud were subject to arbitration in light of broad arbitration clause which called for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of or relating to this agreement breach thereof or any aecounts  
D: holding that the modifying phrase in any manner is sufficiently broad to include attempts to evade taxes by concealing assets to protect them from execution or attachment
B.