With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". can shift the entire loss to a particular insurer notwithstanding the existence of other insurance clauses. See St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. American International Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2004) (interpreting Virginia law and holding that the general rule is that an indemnity agreement between the insureds shifts the entire loss to a particular insurer notwithstanding the existence of other insurance clauses). Indeed, a majority of jurisdictions to have addressed priority of insurance coverage disputes involving additional insureds have held that the downstream/subcontractor’s insurance, including its excess insurance, should pay first and before the contractor’s own primary insurance. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co., 292 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>); Am. Indem. Lloyds v. Travelers Prop. & Cas.

A: holding that a cardinal change provides the contractor with a legal right to avoid the contract discharges the contractors duty to perform and relieves the contractor of the default termination and its consequences
B: 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
C: holding that if contractor is hable to sub that liability though not yet satisfied by payment might well constitute actual damages to the contractor and sustain their suit under rule that contractor may only sue to recover its own damages
D: holding that excess policy issued to downstream contractor and covering upstream contractor as additional insured was liable before upstream contractors own insurance
D.