Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rule we only consider cases involving issues in dispute; we shall not address moot, abstract, academic, or hypothetical questions.”). We also have held that “[a] case is moot if it raised a justiciable controversy at the time the complaint was filed, but events occurring after the filing have deprived the litigant of an ongoing stake in the controversy.” Seibert v. Clark, 619 A.2d 1108, 1110 (R.I.1993). See also Pelland v. State, 919 A.2d 373, 378 (R.I.2007); In re New England Gas Co., 842 A.2d 545, 554 (R.I.2004) (concluding that because the underlying labor dispute had settled, New England Gas no longer had a continuing stake in the controversy, thereby rendering the case moot); Associated Builders & Contractors of Rhode Island, Inc. v. City of Providence, 754 A.2d 89, 91 (R.I.2000) . One narrow exception to the mootness doctrine
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the case to be moot where construction of the pro ject had been entirely completed
B. holding that the settlement of a dispute generally renders a case moot
C. holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed
D. holding that a construction lender may voluntarily assume a duty to inspect the construction project for the borrowers benefit in addition to the lenders independent contractual right to inspect the project for its own exclusive benefit
E. holding that complaint seeking to enjoin highway construction project pending completion of environmental impact statement for larger project no longer presented any live controversy after highway project was completed and thus was moot and provided no basis for federal court jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.