Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cannot dispose of the tortious interference counts. See doc. 184, at 55 n. 88. 13 . See amended complaint, doc. 172, ¶ 19.3(d) (allegation (7)); ¶ 19.3(c)-(d) (all other allegations). 14 . See Burton v. Linotype Co., 556 So.2d 1126, 1128 (Fla.3d DCA 1989) (“Fraud in the inducement and deceit are independent torts for which compensatory and punitive damages may be recovered”), citing Sprayberry v. Sheffield Auto & Truck Serv., Inc., 422 So.2d 1073 (Fla.lst DCA 1982) (“[0]ne who has been fraudulently induced into a contract may elect to stand by that contract and sue for damages for the fraud”); accord, Gold v. Wolkowitz, 430 So.2d 556, 557 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), review denied, 437 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1983); see also Wallis v. South Florida Savings Bank, 574 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Fla.2d DCA 1991) ; Lou Brachrodt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Savage, 570
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing fraud in the inducement claims independent of contract claims without discussion of economic loss rule
B. holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims
C. holding economic loss rule did not bar recovery of tort damages on statutory fraud claim based upon fraudulent inducement
D. holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims
E. holding that the economic loss rule does not preclude independent tort claims that fall outside the scope of a breach of contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.