Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
As presented, the record supports a reasonable inference that SESH authored the “limited margin of error” language, and that inference must be credited on summary judgment. In short, SESH cannot now prevail on the ground that the ambiguous Easement terms are to be construed against the drafter because the identity of the drafter is, itself, a disputed question of material fact. Where, as here, the contract language is ambiguous, the rules of contract construction do not resolve it, and fact questions persist, it is for the finder of fact to decide the contract’s meaning. See McLemore, 7 So.3d at 327 (“Where factual issues arise, the resolution of the ambiguity becomes a task for the jury.”) (citations omitted); Murray v. Holiday Isle, LLC, 620 F.Supp.2d 1302, 1322 (S.D.Ala.2009) . Defendant’s Motion is therefore denied as to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the issue of witness credibility is within the knowledge of the average layperson and must be determined solely by the finder of fact
B. recognizing that courts must submit the ambiguity to the finder of fact if application of  canons of construction proves insufficient to resolve it
C. holding that the issue of proximate causation involves application of law to fact which should be left to the fact finder subject to limited review
D. holding that the courts in the absence of ambiguity should as a general rule confine themselves to a construction of a statute as written and not attempt under the guise of construction to supply omissions or remedy possible defects in the statute or to insert exceptions not made by the legislature
E. holding that where an ambiguity exists in fact or by construction it is proper to consider the history of the legislation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.