With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". requirement to the risks and liabilities assumed by the party providing the insurance coverage.”) (emphasis added). Excell argues that this case is distinguishable from Ogea because there, the parties specifically negotiated the additional assured provision and agreed that the indemnity obligation would not come into play until after the additional assured insurance was exhausted, while here the parties did not. But the Fifth Circuit has rejected a nearly identical argument. In Tullier v. Halliburton Geophysical Services, Inc., 81 F.3d 552 (5th Cir.1996), the Fifth Circuit held that whether the parties “directly negotiated [the] result ... is not controlling,” because the “legal imperative” is to “read the indemnity and insurance procurement provisions harmoniously.” 81 F.3d at 554 (<HOLDING>). Excell also argues that Hercules’s

A: holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify
B: holding that an alleged oral agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor lacked mutuality of obligation and was enforceable where the distributor had no obligation to sell any specific quantity and no obligation to meet any quotas
C: holding that obligation to pay pension benefits gave rise to a constructive trust relationship and obligation was not discharged in bankruptcy
D: holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation
D.