Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
after six years was constitutional. Lamb refrained from deciding however, “whether the legislature could constitutionally abolish all tort claims against builders and designers arising out of improvements they built or designed.” Id. at 443-444, 302 S.E.2d 868. In that case, the court found this was not an issue as “93% of all claims against architects are brought within six years of the substantial completion of the construction.” Id. at 444 n. 7, 302 S.E.2d 868. Similarly, Tetterton v. Long Mfg. Co., Inc., found § l-50(6)’s statute of repose constitutional in part because “over 97 percent of product-related accidents occur within six years of the time the product was purchased.” 314 N.C. 44, 54, 332 S.E.2d 67 (1985). Here, the plaintiff is cla 0, 861 P.2d 625, 30 A.L.R.5th 729 (1993) ; Berry By and Through Berry v. Beech Aircraft
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding first that injuries sustained during contact sports were foreseeable then deciding that public policy insulated the defendant from liability for those injuries
B. holding that the appropriate state statute of limitations to borrow for section 1983 actions is that for recovery of damages for personal injuries
C. holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a product
D. holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service
E. holding that statute barring products liability actions for injuries occurring more than 12 years after product is first sold violated state constitutional prohibition against abrogation of right of action to recover damages for injuries
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.