Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
fear of cancer were not authorized. See id. 674 A.2d at 239-40. There are two ways to analyze the phenomenon of exposure-only causes of action. First is the monolithic view — i.e., that there is only a single cause of action based on exposure to asbestos, for which there are multiple remedies (some of which may not be available). Second is the “polylithic” view (for lack of a better word), that there are multiple causes of action for exposure to asbestos (some of which may not be available) — i.e., there is one cause of action for increased risk of cancer, one cause of action for medical monitoring costs, etc. It is largel (1989); DeStories v. City of Phoenix, 154 Ariz. 604, 744 P.2d 705, 707-11 (Ct.App.1987) (same); Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of Am., 480 A.2d 647, 651 (Del. 1984) ; Capital Holding Corp. v. Bailey, 873 S.W.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the installation of asbestoscontaining materials caused immediate physical injury to the building because asbestos is ultrahazardous
B. holding that injury does not occur upon exposure to asbestos but rather upon development of disease
C. holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim
D. holding that present physical injury caused by exposure to asbestos is essential element of claims for mental anguish and medical monitoring costs
E. holding dollar amount is not an essential element
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.