Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
friendly or collusive lawsuits between family members.” Reid, 352 So.2d at 1173. Moreover, even if Florida did hot have a stated policy interest in allowing family member exclusions, the West court skipped the analysis of competing state interests when a clause in an out-of-state insurance contract explicitly conflicted with Pennsylvania policies and law. West, 807 A.2d at 920. Thus, the Court must next analyze the relevant contacts the states have with the underlying insurance contract. Florida’s contacts with the insurance policy outweigh Pennsylvania’s interest in the application of its law. See Hammersmith, 480 F.3d at 226-27. Mr. and Ms. Weber are residents of Florida, and so the “place of delivery” for the insurance benefits would also be in that state. Ryan, 619 F.Supp.2d at 138 . Furthermore, the insurance contract was
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when determining the adequacy of a jury charge an appellate court should look to the record and the closing arguments to place the words of the judge in context
B. holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state
C. holding that in determining whether a purchase is for nominal consideration the trial court must look to the reasonable value of the interest acquired
D. holding that circuit courts failure to apply statute according to its clear and unambiguous terms amounted to failure to apply clearly established law
E. recognizing that a court may look to the place where the failure to receive the expected benefits was felt in determining which law to apply
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.