Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
exclusion. Absent such an indication, this court will not intervene to rewrite the contract. Despite the opinion of the Washington Supreme Court in Kent, this court is satisfied that diesel fuel, regardless of the way it is “discharged,” “dispersed,” or “released,” is within the definition of pollutants in the insurance policy at issue. As to defendants’ argument that the policy provision “is intended to protect against outside pollutants and waste cleanup, not the effects of a pest control cleanup,” this court is satisfied that the unambiguous language of the policy excludes all pollutants and does not exclude pollutants based on their source or location. See Damar Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Co., 856 F.Supp. 679, 682-83 (N.D.Ga.1993), aff'd, 21 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir.1994),  Even though the court is disturbed by the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of  a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured
B. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony
C. holding that intentional acts do not exclude coverage under the occurrence language unless the injury was expected or intended
D. holding that under georgia law similar language was virtually absolute and noting that it intended to exclude liability coverage for all liabilities arising out of pollution
E. holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.