Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on March 6, 2008. Among the forms was an arbitration agreement. When the Estate filed this action, the defendants timely requested arbitration. The Estate argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and otherwise unenforceable. In an order that did not explain its reasoning, the trial court denied arbitration. There is no evidence that the signing of these documents involved procedural un-conscionability, and the trial court did not find that any procedural unconscionability occurred in this case. From the transcript of the hearing, it appears the trial court held that the agreement was unenforceable because it was substantively unconscionable. We conclude that the trial court erred in this ruling. See FL-Carrollwood Care, LLC v. Gordon, 72 So.3d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) . In addition to providing for arbitration as a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that arbitration agreement was not unconscionable where agree ment did not limit punitive damages and limitation of liability provision was severable if unenforceable
B. holding that an arbitration provision that waived class actions and thus required the consumer to pay a 125 fee to vindicate a 150 claim was substantively unconscionable but also holding that the waiver provision was severable from the remainder of the arbitration provision which would be enforced
C. holding that limitation of liability provisions in arbitration agreement included in nursing homes admissions documents violated public policy and were not severable because they constituted financial heart of arbitration agreement
D. holding that an arbitration clause is valid despite an accompanying limitation on liability because the latter is severable in the event it is found unconscionable
E. holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.