With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court did not err in granting summary judgment to AAIC. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 . James S. Easter, Jr. died during the pendency of these proceedings. Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43, Edward R. Easter and Jeannette I. Easter have been substituted as parties in his place. 2 . Murray failed to file a timely notice of appeal of the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and .2d 855, 859 (7th Cir.1985) (concluding that intervention under Rule 24 requires interest greater than that of standing). Because it did not explicitly mention standing — or even Rauscher — we will not assume that the Court in Treesdale contemplated standing in relation to its analysis of intervention and we need not today resolve the i 123 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Auto. Underwriters Corp. v. Graves, 489 F.2d

A: holding that the injured party had standing to appeal the declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and noting that it was decisive to the holding that dairyland named the injured appellants in its declaratory judgment action
B: holding that an insurer who brought a declaratory judgment action and out of an abundance of caution named the injured party as an additional defendant 1 must have thought the injured party had some potential interest in the insurance policy and 2 had tacitly conceded the injured partys standing to appeal by not contesting the appeal on the ground of lack of standing
C: holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action
D: holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment
A.