With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case. Our review of the district court’s interpretation of this law is plenary. See Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 239, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991) (“[Cjourts of appeals review the state-law determinations of district courts de novo.”). As a general matter, parties are free under Indiana law to enter into an indemnification clause and may obligate one party to insure against and/or to indemnify certain acts or omissions of the other party. Moore Heating & Plumbing, Inc. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, 583 N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind.App.1991). However, it must be clear from the contract or surrounding circumstances that the burdened party agreed “knowingly and willingly” to insure against or indemnify the acts or omissions in question. Id.; see also Wea 0 (Ind.App.1983) (<HOLDING>). The Agreement in this case does not

A: holding that compliance with rule 3 is both a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite to appeal internal quotation marks omitted
B: recognizing that the court has rejected the notion that the agency must expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner internal quotation marks omitted
C: holding that an indemnification clause must expressly state in clear and unequivocal terms that the indemnitor agrees to indemnify the indemnitee against the indemnitees own negligence internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that state officials cannot have been expected to predict the future course of constitutional law internal quotation marks omitted
C.