With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be subject to indemnification when the contract mimics the language in Lanasse by reciting that indemnification extends to any claim “arising out of or in any way directly or indirectly connected with the performance of service under this agreement.” It merely held that indemnity for injuries caused by platform cranes during unloading requires “the plainly expressed intention of the parties, manifested by language couched in unmistakable terms.” Id. at 584. In response to Fifth Circuit case law, Chevron went out of its way to include “loading or unloading” in the indemnification agreement. It also went out of its way to state unambiguously that Chevron’s own negligence would not stand in the way of indemnification. See Theriot v. Bay Drilling Corp., 783 F.2d 527, 540 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The contract, then, said that if Chevron was

A: holding that indemnification provision did not expressly state the party was seeking indemnity for its own negligence so as to satisfy express negligence test
B: holding that the indemnification contract between an owner of train tracks and an owner and operator of a train clearly and unequivocally required indemnification for the track owners negligence given that the contract explicitly stated that the indemnification provisions shall apply regardless of considerations of fault or negligence
C: holding that indemnification  without regard to  the negligence of any party clearly and unequivocally provided bay drilling with indemnification for its own negligence
D: holding that fouryear limitation period on indemnification claim does not commence until the party seeking indemnification has paid a judgment or has made a voluntary payment of its legal liability to an injured party
C.