Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
renewed his policy that was in effect on the date of the accident, March 24, 2006. From 2002 until the date of the accident, Murray never alleged that he attempted or recommended to place liquor liability coverage for Ennie. Considering these facts, Murray created an “unreasonable risk of harm” to Ennie at the earliest in the fall of 2002 and at the latest during the last policy renewal in December 2005. Any meeting between Poeng and Murray that occurred in 2006 regarding insurance coverage was a continuation of Murray’s wrongful act of failing to provide the proper coverage. As such, Murray’s wrongful acts did not occur “wholly after” the retroactive date of January 1, 2006. Therefore, we hold that Murray is not covered under the AAIC policy, and that the Dist 5, 627-28 (8th Cir.1973) . Here, AAIC named Easter and Ennie in its
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured
B. holding that an insurer who brought a declaratory judgment action and out of an abundance of caution named the injured party as an additional defendant 1 must have thought the injured party had some potential interest in the insurance policy and 2 had tacitly conceded the injured partys standing to appeal by not contesting the appeal on the ground of lack of standing
C. holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured
D. holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer
E. holding that an injured person having a possible claim against an insurer who has been made a party defendant to an action for declaratory judg ment possesses the requisite interest to be heard on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.