Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
750, 752 (2d Cir. 1949). There is elaboration and analysis of this point in Terrio v. McDonough, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 163, 165-169 (1983). 7 The equipment is spoken of as a “mogul,” possibly using that term in a sense derived from a dictionary meaning of a mogul as a locomotive used for hauling heavy trains. 8 Such a case as Hamilton Die Cast, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 508 F.2d 417, 419-420 (7th Cir. 1975), cited by Continental, turning on “property damage,” requires discriminating reading because the term was defined differently in the policy there at bar. A more-or-less standardized form of 1966 was succeeded by a form of 1973. Tinker, supra at 218, 232-235; 1 Long, supra at §§ 11.01, 11.10. See Guerin Contractors, Inc. v. Bituminous Cas. Co., 5 Ark. App. 229, 236 (1982) . 9 “Occurrence” was defined in the policy as
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract
B. holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did
C. holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations
D. recognizing the increased breadth of the definition of property damage introduced in the more recent form of policy
E. holding that in a suit on a property damage insurance policy in which liability is not disputed but in which the amount of damage is disputed the amount is unliquidated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.