Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
eviction), interpreted in Wagoner v. Bennett, 814 P.2d 476, 481 (Okla.1991); Okla.Stat. tit. 41, § 124 (providing a tenant -with an action when a landlord makes an unlawful entry). Therefore, any “other invasion of the right of private occupancy” is appropriately interpreted as also requiring an invasion of a real property right. The clear weight of authority in other courts defines this term precisely as we have suggested. See Red Ball Leasing, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indent. Co., 915 F.2d 306, 312 (7th Cir.1990) (applying the rule of ejusdem generis to the personal injury definition of “other invasion of the right of private occupancy” to determine that under Indiana law, it “precludes covera 766, 215 Cal.Rptr. 416, 421-22 (1985) (same); Harbor Ins. Co., 1989 WL 112532, at *1 . Instead of creating an ambiguity, the term
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under delaware law the policys definition of personal injury as wrongful entry or eviction or other invasion of the right of private occupancy applies only to damages incurred as a result of an invasion of an interest in real property
B. holding intent as an essential element to an invasion of privacy by intrusion and not listing intent as a required element of invasion of privacy by publication
C. holding that under california law policy language referring to wrongful entry eviction and invasions of the right of private occupancy pertains to torts against the real property of another
D. holding that invasion of an identifiable customers account is not a necessary element proof under the statute
E. holding that a direct physical invasion of the property was not necessary under the 1876 constitution for a taking to occur
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.