Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
failed to foresee or expect the damage caused by the installations of the foundations. Ante, at---. I do not believe that this is correct. The complaints allege that the failure to satisfy code requirements regarding the footers may not have been intentional. See, e.g., J.A. 277, 289-90 (first Ellerbe complaint alleging that “[t]he defective footers” may be “due to and based upon a systematic and fundamental misunderstanding [of] ... the requirements for footers in the State of Maryland”). And, although the complaints allege some intentional torts, they also allege causes of action against the parks for, among other things, negligent misrepresentation, violation of building code, negligence, breach of warranty, and torts arising from breach of contract. See Brohawn, 347 A.2d at 850 ; Minnick’s, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 47
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy
B. holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts
C. holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage
D. holding that section 101106 applied to intentional torts even though these are excluded from the tort claims acts coverage
E. holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.