Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
entry or eviction.’” Martin, 699 F.Supp. at 170 (applying Illinois law). Actions for “wrongful entry or eviction” deal with violations of one’s real property rights. See Okla.Stat. tit. 41, § 123 (providing a tenant with an action for wro asion of the right of private occupancy” is included in insurance policies simply to provide a “catch-all” category of offenses of the same general type as “wrongful entry or eviction.” As explained by the court in Martin, Absent a catch-all phrase such as “or other invasion of the right of private occupancy,” an insurer could resist cover in doing this, we must look to the facts alleged in East Central’s answer to Liberty’s complaint, irrespective of how East Central legally characterizes those facts. See Pearson Servs., Inc., 937 F.2d at 403 ; County of Columbia, 595 N.Y.S.2d at 990
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a legal malpractice insurance policy that limited coverage to suits seeking damages and defined damages as excluding sanctions did not provide coverage for a sanctions motion against the insured
B. holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage
C. holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage
D. holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage
E. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.