With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". insurer, nor do Black Diamond’s co-defendants have any present right to proceed against St. Paul. Nor is there any way at this time to determine if plaintiff obtains a judgment against one or more of the co-defendants in the state court action whether all or any part of the liability would be assessed against Black Diamond under West Virginia’s comparative fault, comparative contribution rules. Indeed, complete relief can be accorded simply by the adjudication of St. Paul’s duties under the policy which requires neither the state court plaintiff or defendants. Furthermore, the potential interests of the parties in the state court action simply do not rise to the level of a protectible interest as required by Rule 19. See Hoosier Casualty Co. v. Fox, 102 F.Supp. 214 (N.D.Iowa 1952) (<HOLDING>). There is also no merit to St. Paul’s

A: holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured
B: holding that the injured party had standing to appeal the declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and noting that it was decisive to the holding that dairyland named the injured appellants in its declaratory judgment action
C: holding that an insurer who brought a declaratory judgment action and out of an abundance of caution named the injured party as an additional defendant 1 must have thought the injured party had some potential interest in the insurance policy and 2 had tacitly conceded the injured partys standing to appeal by not contesting the appeal on the ground of lack of standing
D: holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured
A.