Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Commercial Union Ins. Co. of Am., 759 F.2d 826, 828 erm “caused” is ambiguous. Georgia law requires courts to construe ambiguous terms in insurance against the insurer. ALEA London Ltd. v. Woodcock, 286 Ga.App. 572, 649 S.E.2d 740, 745 (2007). Courts must likewise construe exclusions from coverage against the insurer. Id. Facing unsettled legal territory and mindful of Georgia principles of insurance contract interpretation, the Court concludes that the ambiguous causation standard must be strictly construed against Cincinnati. Exclusion H does not exclude coverage based on ordinary employee negligence. It excludes coverage only if an employee acts with knowledge of or intent to further a forgery, or intentionally disregards relevant bank policies. See Empire Bank, 27 F.3d at 335 ; cf. Citibank Tex., N.A. v. Progressive Cas.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an employee caused a banks loss under exclusion h where he instructed his subordinates to ignore bank procedures
B. holding that an employee who fails to provide medical documentation requested by the board is responsible for initiating a subsequent suspension without pay
C. holding a bank liable where a bank officer held checks that were intended to pay the irs for withheld taxes
D. holding loss was caused by an employee who ignored bank policies by instructing subordinates to cash corporate checks without proper documentation
E. holding that the effects of injury caused by discriminatory employment policies first manifested when the policies were implemented
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.