With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". order to avail itself of any coverage under the policy, Farm Bureau must stand in the shoes of its insured Ms. Follen-Davis. Without this subrogation context, there is no policy under which Farm Bureau can seek payment from Reliance. Moreover, Northland’s interpretation of the Claim is faulty. Farm Bureau is not a “third party claimant” merely as a result of the settlement agreement. Farm Bureau would have no cause of action against Reliance without its insured, Ms. Follen-Davis. Farm Bureau’s entire posture in the Reliance liquidation is vis-a-vis its relationship with its insured. If, on the other hand, Northland acknowledges that the Claim arises from subrogation, then Farm Bureau “stands in the shoes” of Ms. Follen-Davis. See Johnson v. Beane, 541 Pa. 449, 664 A.2d 96, 100 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The true statutory “claimant” is Ms.

A: holding that an insurance company stands in the shoes of the insured when pursuing an action against the tortfeasor
B: holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured
C: holding that an insurance policy providing that the insurance company would pay all reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at our request emphasis omitted did not establish an agreement that the insurer would cover attorney fees and costs to the insured in a declaratory action
D: holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim
A.