With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". June 22, 1994, when State Farm deposited money representing the policy limits by inter-pleader into the state court. Burton did not sue State Farm until June 7, 2000. Burton contends that until the entry of a judgment in excess of the $100,000 paid to Burton out of State Farm’s insurance proceeds, Padgett did not incur any damages caused by State Farm’s alleged mishandling of the claim, and so the earliest his cause of action accrued was in October 1994 when the insurance funds were disbursed to the parties without a release. Burton contends, however, that Padgett’s cause of action did not accrue until the excess judgment was entered against him on October 27, 1999. The Montana Supreme Court has rejected this argument. Peris v. Safeco Ins. Co., 276 Mont. 486, 916 P.2d 780, 784 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, State Farm’s refusal to settle Burton’s

A: holding that an insurance company stands in the shoes of the insured when pursuing an action against the tortfeasor
B: holding that an insured may sue an insurance company for violation of the utpa before the underlying lawsuit is settled or a judgment entered
C: holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured
D: holding that liability to the insured for acts or contracts of an insurance agent within the scope of his agency with a full disclosure of the principal rests on the company
B.