Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
368 (1997). Here, Policyholders have not shown that Westchester made any material representation regarding the coverage of the policy. In the absence of an express request for a certain type of coverage, the mere issuance of an insurance policy does not constitute a representation that the policy covers everything the insured expects. Although the Supreme Court of Illinois has recognized that an insurer may make a tacit representation regarding the scope of coverage when it sells a policy that lacks any value whatsoever, see Glazewski, 91 Ill.Dec. 628, 483 N.E.2d at 1266, it has refused to extend this rule to cases where the policy does in fact have some value. See Charles Hester Enterprises, Inc. v. Ill. Founders Ins. Co., 114 Ill.2d 278, 102 Ill.Dec. 306, 499 N.E.2d 1319, 1325 (1986) ; see also Friesz ex rel. Friesz v. Farm & City
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing cause of action
B. holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury
C. recognizing the cause of action
D. holding that plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for tacit misrepresentation where the policy had some value
E. holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.