Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the absence of legislative intent to protect the Clerks was evidenced by the fact that the legislature granted a private remedy only to those with an interest in property under section 382.365(3), and that the recording fees the Clerks seek to recover are not mentioned in the recording statutes but rather are contained in an entirely different chapter. Id. The Clerks counter that multiple parties can be intended beneficiaries of a statutory provision, citing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Reeder, 763 S.W.2d 116 (Ky.1988). Their reliance on Reeder is misplaced. Reeder simply reinforces the basic principle that to sue under section 446.070 for a statutory violation, the plaintiff must be within the class of persons the legislature intended to protect. See 763 S.W.2d at 118 . As already discussed, the recording statutes
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although allegations were not specific as to what property was damaged they could be fairly read to include property covered by the insurance policy
B. holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply
C. holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code
D. holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary
E. holding that a homeowner could sue under section 446070 because as the beneficiary of the insurance claim filed by the driver who damaged his property in an accident the homeowner belonged to the class intended to be protected by the insurance code which did not otherwise provide a remedy for thirdparty claimants such as the homeowner
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.