Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
groundwater. Thus, although the PCE contamination (as Sen try now argues) was not actually known or discovered by Greenbriar until 1996 (after the expiration of the Sentry policies), it may have “manifested itself” — that is, it may have been discoverable through reasonable testing — during the effective terms of each of the Sentry policies. Even if, as Sentry urges, “manifest” could be taken also to mean “discovered,” there would be, at most, an ambiguity in the meaning of “manifest” in this case, because “discoverable,” as shown supra, is at the very least an equally plausible definition of the term. The existence of such an ambiguity requires application of well-settled rules of construction as aids in the interpretive enterprise. See, e.g., Partnership Umbrella, 530 S.E.2d at 160 ; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Walton, 244 Va.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect
B. holding that when relevant contract language is ambiguous interpretation is turned over to the factfinder
C. holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous
D. holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous
E. holding that rules of contract construction are to be applied where the language used is ambiguous
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.