Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and is not intended to affect, establish, or diminish any liability of commercial builders, contractors or renovators.”). Indeed, part of the court’s rationale was that California homeowners generally would not be insured for an injury suffered after conveyance of the property. Id. at 483. No such analysis has been offered here. Second, unlike Strakos, Preston focused on “ownership and control as a fundamental requirement for ascribing liability,” rather than the creation of a dangerous condition. Id. at 483. Strakos also rejected the accepted work doctrine, a doctrine that eliminated a defendant’s liability after work was accepted because the defendant no longer controlled the property. Strakos, 360 S.W.2d at 790 (explaining that liability should not exist day 704, 706-08 (1989) ; see also Carroll v. Dairy Farmers of Am.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner
B. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor
C. holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional
D. holding that section 150002 was satisfied with respect to hotel owners claims against former owners architect for negligent design of foundation and drainage
E. holding former plant owner liable for negligent design of conveyor belt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.