Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
bad faith while negotiating his losses: "WHEREAS, Farmers has denied that any such promise was extended to Goodwin, but has nevertheless agreed to pay to Goodwin the sum of $50,000 . . .”. (Italics ours.) Clerk’s Papers, at 27. Likewise, the agreement cannot be said to extinguish Bacon’s liability, as it required commencement of a lawsuit against Bacon, nor did Plaintiff receive full payment, as he would receive any award beyond $50,000, whether from Bacon or Sandoz. Thus, Plaintiff remained the real party in interest, and CR 17 did not compel admission of the test uding the seven federal circuits, that have addressed FIFRA preemption since the United States Supreme Court’s explanation of express preemption analysis in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 120 L. N.Y. 1992) . Upon engaging in our own analysis of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding fifra preempts no commonlaw claims
B. holding that fifra preempts breach of warranty claims based on labeling
C. holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims
D. holding fifra preempts implied warranty claims
E. holding fifra preempts inadequate label claims but not claims for failure to warn through other channels
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.