Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
contract). Jolicoeur contemplates that an insurance administrator could, under appropriate circumstances, illicitly interfere with the contract of its principal. Like any other agent, an administrator could accomplish this feat by acting beyond the scope of its authority. See Kennett v. Marquis, 798 A.2d 416, 419 (R.I.2002) (per curiam) (“An agent, however, may be personally liable for unauthorized acts outside the scope of the agency[.]”); Brown v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 58 P.3d 217, 223 (Okla.Civ.App.2002) (remarking that an independent insurance adjuster could be liable for tortiously interfering with an insurance contract by acting beyond the scope of its authority from the insurer); see also Michelson v. Exxon Research & Eng’g Co., 808 F.2d 1005,1007-08 (3d Cir.1987) ; Rao v. Rao, 718 F.2d 219, 225 (7th Cir.1983)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that insurer could not tortiously interfere with its own insurance plan
B. holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract
C. holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
D. recognizing distinction between corporate officer acting on behalf of himself and corporate officer acting on behalf of his corporation
E. holding that a corporate officer acting in his or her official capacity could not tortiously interfere with a corporate contract because corporations act only through their officers and agents
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.