With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 401, 404 (Tex.2009)). For the reasons just stated, the duty that an insurance agent owes to a client arises from the agent’s agreement to procure coverage for the client. Accordingly, the Court’s initial inquiry is whether Plaintiff has pleaded facts that, if true, would establish that Walker or Paychex agreed to procure $750,000 in coverage for Mr. Kersh. Plaintiff has done so. Plaintiff has alleged that Walker told Mr. Kersh, through Leimbach, to fax his enrollment form to Paychex. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff has alleged that Mr. Kersh faxed his enrollment form to Paychex on August 18, 2011, and that the form indicated that he was requesting $750,000 in life insurance. (Id. IT 21.) And Plaintiff has alleged that on August 22, 2011, Walker emailed Leimbach to say that Mr. Kers 966) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated a claim for

A: holding funds received by plaintiff from an insurance policy that was procured by the defendant and for which a premium was paid are not a collateral source
B: holding agent liable for fire damage to the house his customer was building when the agent after agreeing to have a builders risk policy issued on the house failed to notify the customer that he had not procured such a policy
C: holding that an insurance company may have assumed a duty to defend a customer against a tort claim falling outside the scope of the customers insurance contract where a claims person  told the customer over the telephone that the insurer would take care of it and the insurer shortly thereafter hired a lawyer to represent the customer
D: holding agent liable for fire damage after his customer requested a new policy to replace one cancelled by the insurer and the agent neither procured such a replacement policy nor alerted the customer to this failure by returning the unearned portion of the premium from the original policy
D.