With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Modular obtained a release for Poerio — a party Mr. Smith did not sue and against which Mr. Smith’s statute of limitations had run at the time of trial — preserves Modular’s claim for contribution against Poerio. Although this issue has not'been squarely addressed by this Court, the Parke-Davis Court obliquely noted that, as in West Virginia, states which have adopted the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (“UCA-TA”) typically find that a settlement by a joint tortfeasor terminates its right of contribution, “barring a release obtained by the settling tortfeasor that expressly extinguishes any liability against all tortfeasors.” 217 W.Va. at 23, n. 11, 614 S.E.2d at 23, n. 11 (emphasis added); see also Mackey v. Irisan, 191 W.Va. 355, 361 n. 4, 445 S.E.2d 742, 748 n. 4 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Urging the Court to adopt this rule, Modular

A: recognizing a right to contribution
B: recognizing rule in ucata states that where settling defendant settles only his share contribution does not lie but contribution may be had from defendant whose liability was extinguished by joint tortfeasors settlement
C: recognizing that prior to 1949 when the statute permitting contribution among joint tortfeasors was enacted no right of contribution existed between jointtortfeasors in delaware
D: recognizing contribution in the appropriate case
B.