Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
policy language, not a statute, and the policy language did not have an actual physical contact requirement. Latham, 482 S.W.2d at 657. Five years after Latham, the Legislature added the actual physical contact requirement to the uninsured motorist statute. See Act of May 6, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 182, § 1, art. 5.06-l(2)(d), 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 370, 371 (repealed 2005). No other substitute exists for the requirement of actual physical contact with the motor vehicle itself. Texas courts have uniformly rejected the contention that a collision with cargo and other objects falling from a car satisfies the requirement of actual physical contact with a motor vehicle. See, e.g., Tex. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Deville, 988 S.W.2d 331, 333-34 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ; Republic Ins. Co. v. Stoker, 867 S.W.2d 74,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that collision between the claimants vehicle and a steel pipe dropped from an exiting truck was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
B. holding that water pump falling from truck and striking insured was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
C. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle 
D. holding that collision between loading ramp that detached from trailer and insureds vehicle was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
E. holding that a collision with the loading ramp of a trailer was not actual physical contact with a motor vehicle
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.