Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
so disabled. The second certified question asks us to construe the legal disability statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-106, to determine whether its provisions toll the statute of limitations for individuals of unsound mind when that person’s legal representative accepts responsibility for the injured person’s tort claims arising out of a single incident. As noted above, the statute of limitations for actions for injuries to the person is one year. TenmCode Ann. § 28-8 — 104(a)(1) (2000). However, Tennessee’s legal disability statute provides that: [i]f the person entitled to commence an action is, at the time the cause of action accrued, either under the age of eighteen (18) years, or of unsound mind, such person, or such person’s representatives and pri 590, 592 (Minn.Ct.App.1998) ; Sacchi v. Blodig, 215 Neb. 817, 341 N.W.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appointment of a conservator does not remove a mentally disabled persons legal disability so as to start the statute of limitations running
B. holding that the appointment of a conservator will not cease the tolling of the statute of limitations for those of unsound mind
C. holding that appointment of guardian over incompetent adult does not remove legal disability so as to halt tolling and commence running of statute of limitations
D. holding that the appointment of a guardian for a mentally incompetent or nonage person does not have the effect of commencing the running of the period of limitations tolled by virtue of the disability
E. holding that appointment of guardian does not operate to start statute of limitations running in cases where title to cause of action is in person belonging to class of disabled persons encompassed within tolling provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.