Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by the grantee so described declaring the purposes of such trust, if any, declaring that the real estate is held other than for the benefit of the grantee. Accordingly, that additional language referring to the owners as trustees, did not change the nature of the transaction. Because a sale had taken place, Schiffer was entitled to the fee for his services. However Zosman should not have been held accountable for Schiffer’s attorney’s fees. The contract provided: The architect shall be entitled to recover all costs actually incurred in collecting over-due accounts. The Supreme Court has observed that the term “costs” is not generally understood as including attorney’s fees. See Wiggins v. Wiggins, 446 So.2d 1078, 1079 (Fla.1984); see also Smith v. Sitomer, 550 So.2d 461 (Fla.1989) . Here, the transcript is devoid of evidence
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although we typically review award or denial of attorneys fees and costs for an abuse of discretion where district court denies attorneys fees and costs based upon legal determination that a party is not a prevailing party we review the determination de novo
B. holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees
C. holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith
D. holding parties agreement provided clear contractual justification for the award of costs and expenses including attorneys fees to the prevailing party
E. holding medical liability insurer with policy calling for payment of all costs taxed against insured was not obligated to pay prevailing party attorneys fees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.