With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". it did not amend § 33-934 to authorize a henholder to enforce its hen against an indemnitor. A.R.S. § 33-934 (Historical and Statutory Notes). Instead, the legislature left in place language permitting a henholder to enforce the hen “against the person, firm or corporation liable for damages,” even though the statute states, in part, that the hen may be enforced when money “has been or is to be collected by the injured person ... on account of’ the parties liable for damages. Id. Consequently, under this provision, a hen may only be enforced against an indemnitor if that party is “liable for damages.” Id. ¶ 13 Arizona follows the general rule that, in the absence of a contractual or statutory provision to the contrary, “an injured person has n 239 Neb. 281, 475 N.W.2d 901, 906 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Because § 33-934 delineates the only parties

A: holding hospital could not enforce ben directly against tortfeasors insurer because patient had no right to directly sue insurer
B: holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer
C: holding that payments from a tortfeasors insurer are not from a collateral source because they stem directly from the tortfeasor
D: holding that court of appeals was without jurisdiction to modify judgment against insurer because judgment against insurer became final when it failed to appeal
A.