Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Miles court did note with respect to the Jones Act that it “sailed in occupied waters ... and was not free to expand remedies at will simply because it might work to the benefit of seamen and those dependent upon them”, id., 498 U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 327. As defendants here correctly point out, however, the impact of the considered and settled decision in Miles is to render it anomalous to award the nondependent survivor of a nonseaman a recovery which is patently denied to the nondependent beneficiary of a well-deserving seaman. In effect, to allow plaintiffs to recover wrongful death damages here simply because their son was not a Jones Act seaman would ironically, and improperly, leave the relatives of seamen as a less-favored class under admiralty. Cf. Truehart, supra at 937 ; cf. also Whittaker, supra at 773. Finally,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that wrongful death actions asserted under admiralty jurisdiction lie under general maritime law for death caused by violation of maritime duties and are not limited to standards of liability created by state law
B. holding that admiralty jurisdiction extends to maritime insurance contracts
C. holding that because the general maritime law is its most generous to seamen the wards of admiralty it would refuse to craft for nonseamens survivors a remedy not available to seamens survivors
D. holding that general maritime law preempts state law
E. recognizing loss of society damages as remedy available under general maritime law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.