With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". were caused by Appellees’ negligent ownership and maintenance of the parking lot in which Lawrence slipped and fell. Liberty Mutual contended it was entitled to recover from Appellees by virtue of Section 319 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, which provides that where a compensable injury is caused by a third-party tortfeasor, the employer shall be subrogated to the right of the employee against the third-party tortfeasor to the extent of compensation benefits paid under the WCA. Appel-lees filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the complaint, contending that in the absence of an injured employee electing to file a suit in his own right, a workers’ compensation carrier has no independent ability to bring a subrogation clai 315, 152 A. 90 (1930) (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, the trial court found

A: holding that thirdparty tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employers workers compensation liability
B: holding that the right of the employerinsurer to subrogation against a tortfeasor must be achieved through a single action brought in the name of the injured employee either by joining the employer or insurance carrier as a party plaintiff or as a use plaintiff
C: holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation
D: holding that section 319s mandate that the employer is subrogated  to the extent of compensation payable does not mean that the sole right to recover from the tortfeasor is in the employer rather the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee and suit is to be commenced in his name
D.