Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
nature of the suit because this case can be resolved on a narrower ground. Assuming without deciding under the Koch Fuels rationale that Concor-dia’s designation of the action as arising in admiralty did not necessarily control the entire action, we nonetheless conclude that Pa-nek waived his right to a jury by making a 9(h) election to proceed “In Admiralty” without making a demand for a jury in the counterclaim. To begin, Rule 9(h) applied to Panek’s counterclaim because his claims for breach of contract and negligence were saving 5, 8 (D.Mass.1988) (‘Where a claim is made in accordance with Rule 9(h), the existence of diversity as an alternative basis of jurisdiction will not entitle plaintiff to a jury trial.”); Banks v. Hanover Steamship Corp., 43 F.R.D. 374, 376-77 (D.Md.1967) . Panek argues that the words “In Admiralty” in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures
B. holding that a party need not make a specific reference to rule 9h to fall under admiralty jurisdiction
C. holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction
D. holding that substantive admiralty law applies though suit was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction
E. holding that admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.