Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
services they perform, its relationship with its customers, and by the fact that failure to properly perform the contract could have far-reaching or appalling consequences.” See id. at ¶ 168. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, the Armored Car Carrier Act does not create a legal duty distinct from Defendant’s contract obligations. First, while Plaintiff cites to the Armored Car Carrier Act, it does not state what, if any, particular provision of the statute that Defendant violated. Plaintiff simply cites to the definitions section of the Act. Without an allegation that Defendant violated one or more provisions of the Armored Car Carrier Act’s provisions, Plaintiffs negligence claim must fail. See Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 15 N.Y.2d 134, 139, 256 N.Y.S.2d 595, 204 N.E.2d 635 (1965) . Second, to the extent that Plaintiff is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a statute of general applicability was not enacted for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance
B. holding that the filing of a complaint in a class action suit suspends the statute of limitations but a denial of class certification reactivates the statute of limitations for potential plaintiffs
C. holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction  
D. holding that liability arises out of a statute only in limited instances where disregard of the command of the statute results in damage to one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted
E. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.