Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the loss at issue here. Having decided that each policy provides pro rata coverage, we must address the issue of the first $200,000 of liability, as Payless’s policy with USF & G contains a self-insured retention of that amount applicable to this claim. The district court concluded that Payless was self-insured for that amount, and that the self-insurance was “other insurance” within the meaning of CU’s “other insurance” clause, such that Payless’s self-insurance was primary over CU’s excess coverage for the first $200,000 for which USF & G is not liable. Although Minnesota courts have found certificates of self-insurance to constitute “insurance” in the context of automobile insurance and compulsory liability insurance statutes, see McClain v. Begley, 465 N.W.2d 680, 682 (Mmn.1991) , we do not believe that those cases dictate a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under minnesota law an insurance policy or provision not filed with the commissioner of insurance is unenforceable
B. holding that selfinsurance does not constitute other valid and collectible insurance
C. holding that the certificate of selfinsurance filed with the commissioner is the functional equivalent of an insurance policy for purposes of minnesotas nofault statutes minnstat  65b49 subd 31 2002
D. holding that because the policy by its terms afforded the injured party no coverage neither does minnstat  65b49 subd 3a5
E. holding that there was no actual prejudice where the defendant has the functional equivalent of the notice required
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.