Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
X-Rite thus acted upon a questionable interpretation of Michigan law without first having ascertained whether representation by Vandeveer Garzia would involve a substantial likelihood of prejudice to its interests. X-Rite, 748 F.Supp. at 1228 (footnote omitted); see also Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 336 F.Supp.2d at 621-22. As in X-Rite, the defendants in this case proceeded under the same questionable interpretation of South Carolina law. The insurance companies, in contrast, adhered to settled principles under South Carolina law regarding their right and duty to defend by providing counsel (i.e., Robert McKenzie) to represent the defendants for all claims filed against them, despite the reservation of rights. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 259 S.C. 586, 193 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1972); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Best, 728 F.Supp. 1263,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer
B. holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage
C. holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims
D. holding that insurance providers would be allocated defense costs according to the period of time they provided coverage and the insured would be allocated defense costs according to the period of time it had no insurance coverage
E. holding the insurance company discharged its fiduciary duty when it established the retained asset account in accordance with the insurance policy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.