Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
If the defendant fails to do so and summary judgment is granted against the defendant, he will not be entitled to raise the affirmative defense at a later time in a motion for summary judgment. 2 . Statom seems to argue that Reiswerg’s liability somehow established joint and several liability of CGG and that CGG waived its statute of limitations defense by failing to "raise the statute of limitations defense or any defense to Reiswerg's liability.” Appellee's Brief at 21 (emphasis added). However, Indiana courts have recognized that "[wjaiver is usually a matter of personal privilege; it must be made by the person whose rights or remedies are to be affected.” In re S.L., 599 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); see also Wabash Grain, Inc. v. Smith, 700 N.E.2d 234, 238 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) , reh’g denied, trans. denied. Thus, the fact
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the insurer was not estopped from asserting a policy defense not contained in its reservation of rights letter where the delay was not unreasonable and the insured was not prejudiced
B. holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court
C. holding that employer was estopped to assert a statute of limitations defense where the insurer had arranged to have the claimant examined by one of its physicians after the statute of limitations had run
D. holding that grain ele vator operator was not estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense as a result of related corporations action in an identical federal court action
E. holding that the property appraiser was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations where the failure to bring the action within the limitations period was the direct result of the property appraisers failure to timely perform a related duty owed to plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.