Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Here, the Parish, the Levee District, and the Corps of Engineers undoubtedly formed an agreement to indemnify. See, e.g., Pizani, 12-1084, pp. 9-10, 125 So.3d at 553. The Corps of Engineers agreed to “identify and pay” affected landowners. The proper parties to this suit, however, remain the Parish and the Levee District. | ga“An indemnitor is not liable under an indemnity agreement until the indemnitee actually makes payment or sustains loss.” Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 04-1459, p. 17 (La.4/12/05), 907 So.2d 37, 51 (internal quotations omitted). “An action for indemnity is a separate substantive cause of action, arising at a different time, independent of the underlying” action. Reggio, 07-1433, p. 5, 15 So.3d at 955, but see Pizani, 12-1084, p. 13, 125 So.3d at 555 . Here, Borgnemouth’s suit against the Parish
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship
B. holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply
C. holding that a plaintiff who had asserted no claim against a thirdparty defendant lacked standing to complain of the courts action with regard to the thirdparty defendant
D. holding employers thirdparty complaint seeking indemnity from employee for alleged flsa violations was preempted
E. holding that thirdparty indemnity claims are not premature
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.