Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the trial court erred in allowing the jury to award mental-anguish damages to the homeowners. Id. The Bowerses argue that, in a negligence case, the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff is not in a zone of danger, should be allowed to recover damages for mental anguish resulting from an incident that causes damage to property if the damage to the property is committed under circumstances of insult or contumely. See Reinhardt Motors, Inc. v. Boston, 516 So.2d 509, 511 (Ala.1986). We disagree. Under Alabama law, it is well established that damages for mental anguish are not recoverable in tort where the tort results in mere injury to property unless the damage to property is committed under circumstances of insult or contumely. See, e.g., Jefferies v. Bush, 608 So.2d 361, 364 (Ala.1992) ; Smith & Gaston Funeral Directors v. Wilson,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff could not recover mentalanguish damages in connection with the birth of healthy children
B. holding that a plaintiff could not recover mentalanguish damages because he had failed to rebut the defendants prima facie showing that the alleged trespass was not attended by words or acts of insult or contumely
C. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach
D. holding plaintiff could not pursue ejectment or damages for alleged continuing trespass by power company
E. holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.