Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not a statute of limitations in the traditional sense, but a part of the state's insurance laws dictating what terms must be included in group health policies. As such, we question whether it could impact claims existing at the time of its passage (rather than merely claims brought under policies issued in 1985 or thereafter which included the terms required by the statute), and whether the Missouri legislature would have had reason to include any saving language in the statute. This dilemma raises the more general concern about whether provisions in state insurance codes, such as § 376.426(14), should even be considered "analogous” statutes of limitation for ERISA purposes. See Wetzel v. Lou Ehlers Cadillac Group Long Term Disability Ins. Program, 222 F.3d 643, 647-48 (9th Cir.2000) . As stated above, however, we decline to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the states personal injury statutes of limitation should be applied for claims under section 1983
B. holding that statutes of limitation for bivens and  1983 actions are the same
C. holding that criminal statutes of limitation should be construed in favor of the accused
D. holding that statutes of limitations are considered substantive matters for purposes of the erie doctrine
E. holding such statutes are not analogous statutes of limitation for erisa purposes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.