Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1 . See Tex. Lab.Code § 417.002. Goudeau raised no objection to USF & G's intervention in his pleadings or summary judgment response. 2 . 243 S.W.3d 1, 10. The portion of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming summary judgment against Goudeau's former wife Tasha, see id. at 5-6, has not been appealed. 3 . Fies Hawai’i 117, 883 P.2d 38, 53 (1994) (finding coverage as occupancy if insured vehicle "started the chain of events” that resulted in injury). 13 . See Torres v. Travelers Indem. Co., 171 N.J. 147, 793 A.2d 592, 593 (2002) ("[I]n order to obtain UM coverage where occupancy is in issue, a plaintiff is required to establish a substantial nexus between the insured vehicle and the injury sustained.”). 14 . See Genthner v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 681 A.2d 479, 482 (Me.1996) ; Sayers v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 192 Mont.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle
B. holding that the physical contact needed to support a direct claim against an uninsured motorist carrier pursuant to nc gen stat  2027921 existed where the physical contact arose between the hitandrun vehicle and plaintiffs vehicle through intermediate vehicles involved in an unbroken chain collision which involved the hitandrun vehicle
C. holding attempt to apprehend hitandrun driver was directly and reasonably related to the operation and use of the insured vehicle
D. holding that the term strike as used in a contractual definition of hitandrun coverage required physical contact between the hitandrun vehicle and the insured vehicle
E. holding that probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the accused had committed or was committing an offense in situations where the arresting officer has not observed the operation of the vehicle such facts and circumstances would necessarily have to include a relationship between the time there was evidence to show the influence of intoxicants and the time of operation of the vehicle internal citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.