With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Beacon argues that the indemnity clause in the CSA is invalid in its entirety because it does not explicitly require Beacon to indemnify Weaver for Weaver’s own negligent acts. Rather, the indemnity clause only protects Wéaver from “any and all liability” arising “as a result of their acts, errors, or omissions” and such general language cannot cover claims based on Weaver’s own negligence. See United Rentals Highway Technologies, Inc. v. Wells Cargo, Inc., — Nev. -, 289 P.3d 221, 226-228 (Nev.2012) (finding subcontractor’s duty to indemnify was limited to subcontractor’s own negligence or wrongful acts where indemnification clause did not explicitly state that subcontractor would also indemnify general contractor for general contractor’s own negligence); Reyburn, 255 P.3d at 274-75 (<HOLDING>); Star Ins. Co., 237 P.3d at 97-98 (“[Contracts

A: holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee
B: holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law
C: recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor
D: holding that subcontractor was not obligated to indemnify general contractor for general contractors own negligence where indemnification clause did not expressly state that subcontractor would indemnify general contractor for such negligence
D.