Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
analysis whether Kelly-Ryan at one point claimed that the policy was a marine insurance policy, because even a joint stipulation cannot cure a jurisdictional defect. See Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342 (9th Cir.1996); see also Galt G/S v. Hapag-Lloyd AG, 60 F.3d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir.1995) (“[W]e inquire sua sponte whether admiralty or diversity jurisdiction provided the district court with an independent basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.... ”). We thus turn to the question whether admiralty jurisdiction exists over Kelly-Ryan’s claim against Royal. Admiralty jurisdiction hinges on whether the Big Shield insurance policy with the MEL endorsement is a maritime insurance contract. See Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 1, 35-36, 20 L.Ed. 90 (1870) . If the Big Shield policy is maritime, “and
```
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 wrongful death actions asserted under admiralty jurisdiction lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties and are not limited to standards of liability created by state law
C. holding that the contract disputes act preserves admiralty jurisdiction in the federal district courts for suits arising out of maritime contracts
D. holding that admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts
E. holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.