Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has only one reasonable interpretation. The Farmworkers assert that the phrase means the home villages from which the workers traveled to Monterrey. Indeed, “[t]he place from which the worker has come to work” can reasonably be read to mean the home village of the worker. Alternatively, the Growers contend that the place from which the worker has come to work is Monterrey, as that was the place where the workers gathered, where they were selected to be employees, and from where they traveled collectively to the farms in Florida. This reading of the language is equally reasonable. As both interpretations provide reasonable constructions, the phrase is clearly ambiguous. See Royal Am. Realty, Inc. v. Bank of Palm Beach and Trust Co., 215 So.2d 336, 338 (Fla.4th Dist.Ct.App.1968) . In finding that the phrase clearly and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists
B. holding that extrinsic evidence of the parties course of conduct may be considered where the contract language is ambiguous
C. holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured
D. holding that a contract is ambiguous if a reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or inconsistent interpretations
E. holding that contract language is ambiguous where it is in fact reasonably or fairly susceptible to the different constructions being advocated by the parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.