With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp., 208 Ariz. 478, 95 P.3d 542, 544 (Ct.App.2004) (granting subro-gation, ignoring the alleged negligence of the subrogee and instead focusing on the lack of prejudice to the intervening lien holder, and holding constructive notice is not an element of’equitable subrogation under Arizona law); Houston v. Bank of America Fed. Sav. Bank, 119 Nev. 485, 78 P.3d 71, 73 (2003) (granting subrogation, finding no evidence the intervening lien holder would be prejudiced since it remained in the same position, and adopting the Restatement approach in finding the sub-rogee’s constructive and/or actual knowledge of the intervening lien irrelevant); Suntrust Bank v. Riverside Nat. Bank of Florida, 792 So.2d 1222 (Fla.App.2001), review denied 821 So.2d 300, (Fla.2002)

A: holding in a dispute between first and second mortgagee regarding entitlement to insurance proceeds that because both mortgages required the mortgagor to maintain insurance on the property both mortgagees had a claim to the proceeds and that the first mortgagee was entitled to recover a portion of the proceeds to the extent of the insured amount with the second mortgagee to recover the remainder
B: holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose
C: holding equitable subrogation is to be granted to prevent unjust enrichment even though the party seeking it is negligent as long as there was no prejudice to the other party ie if the refinancing mortgagee could establish the intervening mortgagee would be no worse off than if the original first mortgage had not been satisfied
D: holding extension of senior mortgage resulted in loss of priority because intervening mortgagee had agreed to be subordinated on the assumption the senior mortgage would be fully satisfied on the initial due date
C.