Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
those at issue here, together with wages, remunerate employees for services rendered. — U.S. at -,---, 126 S.Ct. at 2109, 2111-2112. If the contributions at issue are in respect of employees’ services that were rendered prepetition, as here, under the plain meaning of Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(A) and the rationale of the foregoing decisions, the claim for such contributions cannot be accorded priority status under Bankruptcy Code sections 503(b)(1)(A) and 507(a)(1). McFarlin’s, 789 F.2d at 101-102. All of the authorities cited by the Trustees for a contrary reading of sections 503(b) and 507(a) are from courts outside the Second Circuit or construe a different section of the Bankruptcy Code, section 507(a)(4). See, e.g., In re Braniff, Inc., 218 B.R. 628, 631 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1998) ; accord, Ivey v. Great West Life & Annuity
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage
B. holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage
C. holding that the employer created an erisa plan when it 1 paid for the employees insurance 2 contracted with the insurance company for coverage and eligibility requirements and 3 collected and remitted the employees dependents premiums
D. holding that under bankruptcy code section 507a4 the services were an insurers provision of health insurance coverage for employees during the 180day period immediately before the petition date rather than the earlier labor by the employees on which such coverage was based
E. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.