Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 43 F.3d 1471, 1994 WL 705073, *2 (6th Cir.1994) (Table) (applying Webster’s Third International Dictionary’s definition of contamination as “unfit for use by the introduction of unwholesome or undesirable elements” to find that insured’s home was “contaminated” where it had been negligently treated for termites with chlordane, resulting in adverse health effects and forced insureds to move from home); Hartory v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 50 Ohio App.3d 1, 552 N.E.2d 223 (1988) (applying Webster’s definition and holding that contamination exclusion precluded coverage for damages resulting when methane gas from a neighboring landfill penetrated the plaintiffs’ home forcing them to evacuate); Auten v. Employers Nat. Ins. Co., 722 S.W.2d 468 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986) ; St. Mary’s Area Water Auth. v. St. Paul Fire
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law
B. holding that insureds loss resulting from exterminators misapplication of pesticides which rendered their home uninhabitable was caused as matter of law by contamination and thus was excluded under terms of allrisks homeowners policy
C. holding that unintended damage to a pipeline caused by the defective coating supplied by insureds subsidiary was caused by an occurrence within the meaning of the liability policy
D. holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else
E. holding that the misapplication of case law may not be reviewed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.