Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to future PIP benefits by executing the release. In so arguing, Bear River relies on language in its insurance policy with the Walls stating that the insured shall not be entitled to receive “duplicate benefits.” However, as Bear River recognizes in its brief, the duty to pay PIP benefits to the insured is governed by Utah law. Utah’s no-fault statute requires that insurance policies bought to satisfy the security requirements of Utah law contain provisions providing for minimum PIP benefits. See Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-302(2) (1994). Therefore, an insurance policy may not limit the insured’s right to receive minimum PIP benefits as provided by Utah law, as this would violate those provisions of the Utah no-fault statute. See Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Call, 712 P.2d 231, 233-36 (Utah 1985) ; Larsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 857 P.2d 263,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding household or family exclusion clause in automobile insurance policy contravenes statutory requirements found in utahs nofault statute as to minimum benefits which must be provided to all persons sustaining personal injuries
B. holding that the mcca was not obligated to indemnify a claim under a california automobile insurance policy that was reformed into a michigan nofault automobile insurance policy five years after the subject accident and stating that the mcca can refuse to indemnify claims paid under mcl 5003163
C. holding that united states in ftca action may rely on immunities available to a private automobile owner covered by new jerseys nofault insurance law even though it was not literally the owner of an automobile under the new jersey statute
D. holding that household exclusion clauses in policies of automobile liability insurance are contrary to public policy
E. holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.