Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
SPD at issue in this case, including calling one or both of the federal offices listed in the SPD, would not have been aware of the one-year limitations period set forth in the Plan, and instead presumably would have relied on the general principles of law applicable to ERISA claims. Under those principles, an action seeking benefits under ERISA must comply with the “most analogous” state statute of limitations. Held v. Manufacturers Hanover Leasing Corp., 912 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir. 1990). In this case, which was brought in Utah, the most analogous state statute of limitations is Utah's three-year statute of limitations applicable to written policies or contracts of first party insurance, Utah Code Ann. § 31A-21-313(1). Lang v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 196 F.3d 1102, 1104 (10th Cir. 1999) . Thus, absent the one-year limitations period
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims
B. holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination
C. holding that the virginia disabilities act constitutes the most analogous state statute of limitations for claims brought under the ada
D. holding that this statute was the most analogous state statute for purposes of erisa action filed in utah
E. holding that statute of limitations governing the most closely analogous state substantive claim controls rather than the forum states borrowing statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.