Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
I find this argument unavailing as well. The language of the condition precedent does not apply to claims that Carrón could or could not make at any given time. Rather, the condition applies to those “claims” that Carrón might make. Brentwood’s subjective belief concerning the likelihood of Carrón filing a lawsuit is irrelevant under the plain language of the condition precedent. As other courts have noted, this language instructs the court to first look at the insured’s subjective knowledge “and then the objective understanding of a reasonable attorney with that knowledge.” Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd., 264 F.3d 302, 306 (3rd Cir.2001) (emphasis added); see also Wittner, Poger, Rosenblum & Spewak, P.C. v. Bar Plan Mutual Ins. Co., 969 S.W.2d 749, 754 (Mo.1998) (en banc) . Brentwood also argues that the exclusion
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding this statute did not bar insurers denial of coverage for legal malpractice claim because the insured prior to inception date of policy had reason to believe that an act or omission might reasonably be expected to be the basis of a claim
B. holding that reinsurer could be directly liable to an insured where the reinsurance agent was the ultimate consistent reimburser of losses of the insured and this status was conveyed to the insured
C. holding that the policy language expected or intended by an insured person is unambiguous and requires a subjective intent on behalf of the insured
D. holding that regardless of the subjective belief of the insured the record established a basis to believe that the insured had committed an act that could give rise to a claim under the policy
E. holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.