Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ins. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 224 Or 57, 61, 355 P2d 742 (1960) (“The purpose of an exclusion clause is the opposite of that of a coverage clause. * * * [T]he effect of an exclusion clause is to deny the protection of the policy to someone who, but for the denial, would be an insured.”); Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 793 (unabridged ed 2002) (defining an “exclusion clause” as “a clause in an insurance policy barring certain losses or risks from coverage”). A condition of forfeiture exists where, initially, the policy provides coverage for the loss, but acts of the insured nullify the coverage. Day-Towne v. Progressive Halcyon Ins. Co., 214 Or App 372, 381, 164 P3d 1205 (2007), rev den, 346 Or 65 (2009); see, e.g., Kabban v. Mackin, 104 Or App 422, 429, 801 P2d 883 (1990) . Here, for a condition of forfeiture to exist,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage
B. holding that the policy insured property but failure to occupy premises negated coverage
C. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed
D. holding that the decoration contractor freeman was not subject to premises liability because it did not occupy own control or make special use of the premises at the javits center
E. holding that an ownedproperty exclusion did not apply with respect to property that the insured bought only after the policy periods for which the insured sought coverage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.