With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to summary judgment on its Section 542.058 claim, as the court had already held that insurer breached duty to defend); Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Reconsider at 3 (“Admiral ... does not now argue that the ‘independent injury’ requirement applies to a claim under the ‘Prompt Payment Act.’ ”); Performance Autoplex II, Ltd. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 322 F.3d 847, 861 (5th Cir.2003) (“The sole basis for finding liability under [§ 542], then, is that the requisite time has passed and the insurer was ultimately found liable for the claim.”); Harrison v. Int’l Catastrophe Ins. Managers, LLC, No. 10-CV-683, 2012 WL 1231071, at *5 (E.D.Tex. March 22, 2012), adopted by 2012 WL 1232020 (E.D.Tex. April 12, 2012); Higginbotham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 F.3d 456, 461 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiff had a duty to defend, and

A: holding that good faith exception does not apply because it is inconsistent with text of article 3823
B: holding that there is no good faith exception for failing to comply with texas insurance code article 2155 predecessor to chapter 542
C: holding federal good faith exception incompatible with provisions of state constitution
D: recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule
B.