Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the ensuing loss provisions do not provide coverage for the claimed loss. Bad Faith and CPA Claims Capelouto also contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his bad faith and CPA claims. Our review of the trial court’s dismissal of these claims is de novo, and we note that we may sustain the trial court’s judgment on any theory established by the pleadings and proof. Stuart v. American States Ins. Co., 134 Wn.2d 814, 818, 953 P.2d 462 (1998); Weiss v. Glemp, 127 Wn.2d 726, 730, 903 P.2d 455 (1995). In Coventry Associates v. American States Insurance Co., 136 Wn.2d 269, 961 P.2d 933 (1998), our Supreme Court recently held that a first party insured may have a cause of action against an insurer for bad faith even in the absence of coverage. See Coventry, 136 Wn.2d at 277-83 . Our laws require insurance companies to “be
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding however that a first party insured is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of harm
B. holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption
C. recognizing a rebuttable presumption of reliance in rule 10b5
D. holding that in case of a short term marriage a presumption against awarding permanent alimony arises but such presumption is rebuttable
E. holding that any sentence that is properly calculated under the guidelines is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.