Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
services. Dr. Ostrer, on the other hand, maintains that he could have proceeded with his BRCA-related clinical activities without taking a license from Myriad. This assertion is based on his belief that the patents Myriad claims cover such activities are invalid because genes are patent-ineligible products of nature. Acting on his belief, Ostrer seeks in this lawsuit a declaration of his right to undertake NfiCA-related clinical activities without a license. Accordingly, Myriad and Dr. Ostrer have taken adverse legal positions regarding whether or not Ostrer can engage in BRCA genetic testing without infringing any valid claim to “isolated” BRCA DNAs or methods of “analyzing” or “comparing” BRCA sequences, as recited in Myriad’s patents. See Aetna Life, 300 U.S. at 242, 57 S.Ct. 461 . Dr. Ostrer has also alleged a controversy of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an endorsement to an existing insurance policy which added a new vehicle did not create a new contract of insurance but was merged with and became a part of the original policy
B. holding that failure to pay obligations under a contract is a material breach as a matter of law when parties explicitly state in the contract that failure to pay warrants termination
C. holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract
D. holding declaratory judgment jurisdiction existed when the parties had taken adverse positions with respect to their existing obligations on an insurance contract
E. holding the same with respect to an apartment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.