Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
liability is not cut down by the subsequent 'additional condition’ making defendant liable for actual cost of repairs or replacement.”). 16 . In at least some of these cases, however, courts found the policy language ambiguous and therefore applied the rules of construction requiring the court to construe the terms of the insurance policy against the insurer. See, e.g., Delledonne, 621 A.2d at 354; Campbell, 109 S.E.2d at 577. In others, courts applied rules of construction contrary to those followed in Texas and strictly construed the policy language against the insurer without first finding that the language was ambiguous. See, e.g., Gibbs, 127 S.E.2d at 461; Corbett, 134 S.E. at 338. 17 . See, e.g., Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 157 Ariz. 1, 754 P.2d 330, 331 (1988) ; Ray v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 200 Cal.App.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a claim against an insurer for vexatious refusal to pay cannot be maintained where the court finds that the insurer has no duty to defend under the policy
B. holding that if despite repairs there remains a loss in actual market value estimated as of the collision date such deficiency is to be added to the cost of repairs
C. holding that an insurer has no obligation to pay diminished value in addition to repairs
D. holding that if the insurer cannot return the vehicle to substantially the same condition then the actual cash value is the appropriate measure where insured sued for damages caused by insurers inappropriate election to repair and the value after repairs was almost sixty percent less than its preloss value
E. holding insurer was not obligated to repair the damaged automobile to both its preaccident condition and market value concluding that permitting coverage of diminished value would render meaningless the insurers clear policy right to repair rather than pay actual cash value
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.