With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nova Casualty, 69 Fed.Cl. at 294, would apply this pass dem., 376 F.2d at 893-94. The Federal Circuit and predecessors have long recognized, even prior to the Court’s holdings in Munsey Trust and Pearlman, that a payment-bond surety may become equitably subrogated to both the rights of the subcontractors, whose claims it has paid, and the prime contractor, whose debts it has satisfied. See, e.g., Balboa, 775 F.2d at 1161; United Elec., 647 F.2d at 1086; Globe Indem., 84 Ct.Cl. at 595-96. The Federal Circuit’s statements in Insurance Company of the West about a payment-bond surety’s rights are dicta that cannot be read to have altered the principles of suretyship previously applied by the Supreme Court and this circuit for nearly a century. See Pearlman, 371 U.S. at 141, 83 S.Ct. 232 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Federal Circuit in Insurance

A: recognizing rule
B: holding that the tecon timing rule remains undisturbed
C: holding that the rule from prairie state and henningsen was left undisturbed by munsey trust and that it could not say that such a firmly established rule was so casually overruled
D: holding that munsey left the rule in prairie bank and henningsen undisturbed
C.