Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that he committed the arson. 3 If Guastella or Wasyluk is proved to have intentionally started the fire, the question will again arise whether arson committed by either or both of them will relieve the insurer, in whole or in part, from indemnifying BLT for the loss. New Jersey law is clear that if the insured is an individual who intentionally sets fire to his own property, an insurer will be relieved from having to compensate him for the resulting fire damage. Olesak v. Central Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.J.Super. 155, 158-159, 521 A.2d 849 (App.Div.1987). The more difficult question is the availability and effect of an arson defense where the insured is a corporation. Compare Miller & Dobrin Furniture Co. v. Camden Fire Ins. Co., 55 N.J.Super. 205, 218-219, 150 A.2d 276 (Law Div.1959)  and Italian Fisherman v. Commercial Union
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that arson committed by a dominant fiftypercent stockholder was attributable to the corporation
B. holding that arson committed by stockholder who was the principal managing agent precluded recovery by the corporation
C. holding an insured corporation could not recover for a fire loss caused by its controlling shareholders arson
D. holding that in an arson case there must be other proof that the offense was committed to corroborate a confession by the defendant
E. holding that  10b applies to fraud on corporation by controlling stockholder and that the fact that creditors of the defrauded corporation may be the ultimate victims does not warrant disregard of the corporate entity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.