Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to indemnify a public employee for defense costs arising out of willful or wanton misconduct,” regardless of the context in which those defense costs arise. We disagree. The statutes from which the city derives its broad public policy are part of the OTCA. By its terms, the OTCA establishes when the state and its subdivisions must expend public funds to address tort claims. Through the amendment of ORS 30.285 and ORS 30.287 in 1975, the legislature expanded the OTCA to require the state and its subdivisions to take financial responsibility for tort claims filed against their employees. Indeed, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that ORS 30.287 is directed to “torts, [and] not to other claims.” City of Tualatin v. City-County Ins. Services Trust, 321 Or 164, 171, 894 P2d 1158 (1995) . That statute and ORS 30.285 were designed “to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that proof that an employer fired an employee three months after the employee filed a charge of discrimination sufficed to state a prima facie case of causation
B. holding that ors 30287 does not oblige a municipality to defend an employee against an ethics charge
C. holding that the other party must have adequate notice of the claim in order to defend against it
D. holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured
E. holding that rule 52040 prohibited the state from amending the indictment to include a different charge because defendant was prejudiced in that he had no ability to defend himself against the added charge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.