Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Furthermore, Wiggins’s contention violates the purpose of the notice provision to “immediately” give notice of legal process: “to afford [State Farm] an opportunity to control litigation.” See Reeves, 539 So.2d at 256 (citation omitted). Thus, written notice to State Farm of the Incident and of Wiggins’s suit was delayed by more than three years and one year, respectively. Sanders has not offered an excuse for the delay. In fact, the correspondences to State Farm by Sanders and his parents show that they did not want State Farm to be involved in the matter relating to the Incident. Although Wiggins contends that she gave written rt’s declaratory judgment that a one-year delay with insufficient reasons for the delay was too late to require indemnification); Pharr, 429 So.2d at 1019— 20 ; Thomas, 334 So.2d at 885 (holding that a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a five month delay was unreasonable
B. holding that an eightmonth delay without excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law
C. holding that an over twoyear delay without any excuse was unreasonable as a matter of law
D. holding threeyear delay without mitigating circumstances was unreasonable
E. holding inability to locate attorney who would prosecute infringement suit inadequate as matter of law to excuse delay
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.