With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". direct cause of action against a tortfeasor’s insurance company.” Nationwide, 166 Ariz. at 517, 803 P.2d at 928 (citing E.H. Schopler, Annotation, Conflict of Laws as to Right of Injured Person to Maintain Direct Action Against Tortfeasor’s Automobile Liability Insurer, 16 A.L.R.2d 881 (1951)); 7 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance § 104:2 (3d ed.1999) (noting there generally is no common law right of direct action). Arizona has not enacted such a statute, and the record does not reflect that NPM’s insurance policy with Reliance granted such a right. Thus, Rebanee, as NPM’s insurer, is not bable to Jenkins for damages, and Maricopa County is therefore not entitled to enforce its ben against Reliance under § 33-934. See Nationwide, 166 Ariz. at 516-17, 803 P.2d at 927-28 (<HOLDING>); West Nebraska Gen. Hosp. v. Farmers Ins.

A: holding ars  362916b which is substantively identical to  33934 does not authorize ahcccs to enforce ben against thirdparty tortfeasors insurer
B: holding that recovery from the tortfeasors insurer is a condition precedent to a claim for uim benefits
C: holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer
D: holding hospital could not enforce ben directly against tortfeasors insurer because patient had no right to directly sue insurer
A.