Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
charge of another who is helpless adequately to aid or protect himself is subject to liability to the other for any bodily harm caused to him by (a) the failure of the actor to exercise reasonable care to secure the safety of the other while within the actor’s charge, or (b) the actor’s discontinuing his aid or protection, if by so doing he leaves the other in a worse position than when the actor took charge of him. New Jersey’s Good Samaritan Act, N.J.SA. § 2A:62A-1, however, shields from civil liability volunteers who, in good faith, render care at the scene of an emergency, even if they do so unreasonably. Lundy, 34 F.3d at 1180. Although the Act does not apply when there was a preexisting duty that was breached, we have already determined that issue against Mrs. Abramson. See id. . Moreover, there is no allegation much less
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding on rehearing that exclusion for disabilities caused by a preexisting medical condition would not support denial of benefits caused by staph infection resulting from surgery for a preexisting condition
B. holding that the preexisting duty exception does not apply where the preexisting duty is a limited one and the alleged negligence is the failure to provide a level of assistance beyond that required by the preexisting duty
C. holding that treatment for symptoms of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis activated the preexisting condition exclusion and stating that there is no requirement that a diagnosis definite or otherwise of the preexisting condition must be made during the preexisting condition period
D. holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend
E. holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.