Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the back door the causes of action that would not benefit from the delayed discovery doctrine under Davis. It is unlikely that the supreme court narrowed the delayed discovery doctrine in Davis on November 7, 2002, only to have it subsumed by equitable estoppel on November 27, 2002 in S.A.P. 8 . In Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197, 84 S.Ct. 1676, 12 L.Ed.2d 793 (1964), Justice Stewart wrote in a concurring opinion: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. 9 . See, e.g., Jaszay v. H.B. Corp., 598 So.2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) ; Glantzis v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 573
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding nursing home estopped from raising statute of limitations defense when it stipulated to sixtyday extension of presuit screening period
B. holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run
C. holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period
D. holding that defendants may be estopped from raising defense of statute of limitations even though equitable estoppel is not listed in fla stat  95051
E. holding that when the department of insurance acknowledged that it had received an accident report of a claim within the statute of limitations  it was thereafter estopped after the expiration of the statute of limitations to deny receipt of the claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.