With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (traditional summary judgment). 11 . Smart, 597 S.W.2d at 337. 12 . See Keck, Mahin & Cate v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 20 S.W.3d 692, 695-96 (Tex.2000). 13 . Id. 14 . Id. at 696. 15 . Mid-Continent Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 236 S.W.3d 765, 774 (Tex.2007) (emphasis added); see also Galbraith-Foxworth Lumber Co. v. Long, 5 S.W.2d 162, 167 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1928, writ ref'd); Lancer Corp. v. Murillo, 909 S.W.2d 122, 127 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, no writ) (identifying Texas cases that granted equitable subrogation rights to sureties, guarantors, and creditors and concluding that a self-insured manufacturer was likewise entitled to equitable subro-gation). But see Excess Underwriters v. Frank's Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tex.2008) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Smart, 597 S.W.2d at 338-39. 17 . Id. at

A: holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties
B: recognizing equitable subrogation
C: recognizing that the determination is an equitable one
D: recognizing the longstanding rule that insurers may not apply equitable subrogation against their insureds
D.