Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
had seeped into the groundwater and then migrated onto Easton’s. Those chemical solvents continue to contaminate Easton’s soil and groundwater and will do so for several years. Remediation efforts could take as long as thirty years. While the pollution poses no significant health risks to humans, building occupants on Easton’s property inhale vapors from the contami nated groundwater and must avoid contact with the groundwater. Easton sought damages and injunctive relief from Aramark for the prior and ongoing migration of contaminated groundwater onto his property. He asserted various common law theories (reckless or negligent endangerment/failure to warn, strict liability, trespass, private nuisance, and negligence), as well as v. Peterson, 674 So.2d 201, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) , review dismissed, 687 So.2d 1305 (Fla.1997).
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that erisa creates no private right of action
B. recognizing cause of action
C. holding that mississippis wrongful death statute creates an independent cause of action
D. holding that section 3763133 creates a cause of action
E. recognizing the cause of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.