With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". without a relationship between USDA and Supreme Beef, USDA’s claims, and likely Supreme Beefs claims, would not have arisen. However, we find nothing in Lile to support Supreme Beefs contention that the two claims bear a logical relationship to each other. The “chain of events” language on which Supreme Beef relies is part of the court’s unremarkable holding that one cannot separate the underlying debt (the unpaid taxes) from the enforcement action (the levy), when discussing whether the levy and the counterclaim arose from the same transaction or occurrence. Further, this Court has implicitly rejected this “chain of events” notion when common facts and legal issues are not present. See Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Winegardner & Hammons, Inc., 714 F.2d 548, 551 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). We hold that Supreme Beefs counterclaim does

A: holding that a suit against one insurance company was not compulsory as related to a suit against another insurance company because even though they were the result of the same event  a hurricane strike  they were two different parties with two different policies
B: holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim
C: holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit
D: holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims
A.