Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
THE LANDLORD from any and all liability for loss, injury (including death), or damages to person or property sustained while in or on the facilities of LANDLORD, including fire .... ” (App. of Exs., tab 2.) The boat owners argue that it is not enough that the clause released the marina from all liability, it must do more by specifically referring to liability caused by the marina’s own fault. The boat owners made clear during oral argument that they do not suggest that the clause is deficient for not using the magic term “negligence,” but argue that it must refer to liability arising from the marina’s fault in some manner. We recognize that the Supreme Court of Missouri requires something more, see Alack v. Vic Tanny Int’l of Mo., Inc., 923 S.W.2d 330, 337 (Mo.1996) (en banc) , but we are applying federal maritime law,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that exculpatory clause in health club membership did not exculpate the facility from liability for a personal injury stemming from the facilitys negligence because the clause did not use the term negligence fault or equivalents
B. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury
C. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
D. holding that release unambiguously released defendants from negligence liability even though the release did not include the word negligence because there was no other rational purpose for which the exculpatory language could have been intended
E. holding that exculpatory clause in release plaintiff signed as part of a health club membership agreement was not specific enough to release club from negligence liability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.