Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of what constitutes an adequate “independent duty” for imposing common-law indemnity from a general contractor to a subcontractor for injuries to another. Thus, the standards discussed above, in reference to National Tank’s third-party claim for indemnity against Eagle Grove, for what constitutes the necessary “independent duty” appear to be equally applicable here. Thus, the question is whether Gehrke’s alleged duty to supervise and maintain the safety of the job site is the sort of duty of “a specific, defined nature,” running from Gehrke to National Tank, and not simply the general duty of care owed to each member of society. See, e.g., Hysell, 534 F.2d at 782-83; accord Johnson, 481 N.W.2d at 320 (quoting this standard from Hysell); Abild Constr. Co., 144 N.W.2d at 310-11 ; see also Woodruff Constr. Co., 406 N.W.2d at
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an indemnity provision need not be valid and enforceable to trigger obligations under the contract so long as the parties agreed to indemnity
B. holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant
C. holding that a party that settled but failed to immediately notify a third party of indemnity claims did not waive indemnity claims
D. holding that a duty not to cause injury to another by ones negligent act is too broad to serve as a basis for permitting indemnity of an employer to a third party
E. holding that an indemnitee must be proven to be free of negligence in order to receive indemnity either under a general indemnity agreement or under implied indemnity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.