Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the Texas Department of Insurance. 9 . Trinity made no assertion in its motion for summary judgment that diminished value is not a direct or accidental loss or that it does not fall within the coverage afforded under Part D of the insuring agreement. 10 . Cope cites cases from several courts of appeals in this state to support this statement. E.g., Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. McClintic, 267 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1954, writ ref.'d n.r.e.); American Standard County Mut. Ins. C 6 Or. 690, 114 P.2d 1005, 1009 (1941) (stating "it cannot be said that there has been a complete restoration of the property unless it can be said that there has been no diminution of value after repair of the car.”); Ciresi v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 187 Minn. 145, 244 N.W. 688, 690 (1932) ; Edwards v. Md. Motorcar Ins. Co., 204 A.D.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that depreciation could not be deducted from cost to repair building to its condition prior to fire under actual cash value policy
B. holding measure of damages for unabated nuisance affecting greenhouse was the depreciation of the market value by reason of the continuance of a permanent nuisance
C. holding that if repairs to a firedamaged vehicle with parts of like kind and quality would not restore the vehicle to its former market value the proper measure of damages was the difference in market value before and after the loss where the policy limited liability to the cost to repair or replace the property  with other of like kind and quality less depreciation
D. holding that depreciation in land value caused by a material change in a highway grade which made access to the property difficult is compensable
E. holding plaintiff entitled to depreciation after repairs in determining the vehicles value at the time of the theft allowance must be made for depreciation then accrued
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.