With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a duty to indemnify. “Under Texas law, the same general rules apply to the interpretation of contracts and insurance policies.” Aubris Res. L.P. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 483, 486 (5th Cir.2009). The insurance contract should be “considered as a whole” and “each part of the contract should be given effect.” Id. (citing Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tex.1994)). The primary concern of the court should be ascertaining the parties’ true intent as expressed in the policy language; no construction should be adopted that renders a policy portion meaningless, useless, or inexplicable. Id. (citing Evanston Ins. Co. v. ATOFINA Petrochemicals, Inc., 256 S.W.3d 660, 668 (Tex.2008)); see also Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the duty to defend and the duty

A: holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute
B: holding that parties to contract intend every clause to have some effect
C: holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear
D: holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute
B.