Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
unreasonable task in proving the point of initial injury.” Ibid. In Joe Harden Builders, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 326 S.C. 231, 486 S.E.2d 89 (S.C.1997), the South Carolina Supreme Court replied to a federal district court’s certified question regarding the appropriate trigger of coverage when defective construction results in progressive and continuous property damage. The plaintiff contractor sought payment under a subcontractor’s insurance policy. The court held that “coverage is triggered at the time of an injury-in-fact and continuously thereafter to allow coverage under all policies in effect from the time of injury-in-fact during the progressive damage.” Id. at 91. See also Lincoln Electric Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 210 F.3d 672, 690 (6th Cir.2000); Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. v. First Ins. Co. of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding defendant failed to rebut statutory presumption where evidence was not particular to the facts and circumstances of the case
B. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed
C. holding that an eighth amendment plaintiff did not have to prove that he was actually injured by exposure to raw sewage only that such exposure posed a serious health risk
D. holding in dispute over coverage for personal injury claims relating to welding fumes and asbestos exposure that exposure would presumably trigger defendant insurers policy but remanding case to allow defendant to rebut this presumption with evidence of injuryinfact
E. holding that insurance coverage in the context of asbestosrelated diseases is triggered by exposure exposure in residence and manifestation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.