Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
assembly is not a motor vehicle under Chapter 601. Applying the common usage of the term and the definition in Chapter 601, we conclude that physical contact with a detached axle and tandem wheels is not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle under the unidentified motor vehicle provision. Elchehimi also argues that this collision involved a legally recognized substitute for the statute’s actual physical contact requirement. In Latham v. Mountain States Mutua of contact with parts of the vehicle itself, rather than simply cargo, has concluded that such contact is also not enough to satisfy this strict requirement. See Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 04-02-00646-CV, 2003 WL 21391534, at *1, 2003 Tex.App. LEXIS 5056, at *6-8 (Tex.App.-San Antonio June 18, 2003, pet. denied) . We agree that a collision with a separated
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that collision between the claimants vehicle and a steel pipe dropped from an exiting truck was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
B. holding that collision between loading ramp that detached from trailer and insureds vehicle was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
C. holding that water pump falling from truck and striking insured was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
D. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle 
E. holding that the physical contact needed to support a direct claim against an uninsured motorist carrier pursuant to nc gen stat  2027921 existed where the physical contact arose between the hitandrun vehicle and plaintiffs vehicle through intermediate vehicles involved in an unbroken chain collision which involved the hitandrun vehicle
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.