With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". however, provides a narrow exception to this rule: [U]pon the submission of documentation to the commission that a contractor or subcontractor has represented himself to a higher tier subcontractor, contractor, or project owner as having workers’ compensation insurance at the time the contractor or subcontractor was engaged to perform work, the higher tier subcontractor, contractor, or project owner must be relieved of any and all liability under this title except as specifically provided in this section. Liability may only be transferred from the higher tier contractor to the Fund after the higher tier contractor has properly documented the lower tier contractor’s claim that it retains workers’ compensation insurance. See Barton v. Higgs, 381 S.C. 367, 371, 674 S.E.2d 145, 147 (2009) (<HOLDING>). We find substantial evidence in the record to

A: holding that insurance certificate holder could not maintain negligence action against insurer when certificate holder was not insurers customer did not discuss insurance coverage with insurer and did not make any specific request to procure insurance coverage
B: holding that where a bankrupt wife transferred a certain lot to her husband the husband being already the equitable owner of the transferred property it cannot be said that the lot was transferred to him without consideration
C: holding that because exclusion was not provided to certificate holder terms of the certificate controlled
D: holding liability could not be transferred to the fund where the certificate of insurance was not signed
D.