Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
428 N.E.2d 656, 661 (Ind.Ct.App.1981)). While we do not approve of Safety's failure to acknowledge Cinergy's letters, given the facts of this case, including the fact that Safety had issued excess umbrella policies that would not be implicated until after the primary and umbrella policies, we cannot conclude that Safety's silence equated to an express denial of coverage. Therefore, we must conclude that the trial court erred by concluding that Safety waived its right to arbitrate by failing to respond to Cinergy's letters. See, eg., Protective Ins., 428 N.E.2d at 661 (noting that "the failure of [the insurance company] to respond to the demand to defend letter is not evidence that [the insurance company] intended to waive its right to deny coverage"); see also MPACT, 802 N.E.2d at 910 . In addition, we agree that Safety did not act
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that substantial participation requires particular facts relating to each djefendants specific role in the preparation of each of the allegedly misleading statements
B. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue
C. holding the rationale of thomas requires waiver to apply to each issue not included in an objection
D. holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal
E. holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.