Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and respect for the D.C. Court of Appeals.”). The Supreme Court held in Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991), that “a court of appeals should review de novo a district court’s determination of state law.” Id. 499 U.S. at —, 111 S.Ct. at 1221. The D.C. Court of Appeals has not squarely addressed the question whether bad faith denial of an insurance claim constitutes an independent tort under D.C. law. The district court has considered the issue in two separate reported cases, but these cases are directly in conflict. Compare GEICO, 769 F.Supp. at 387 (“District of Columbia law does not recognize the tort of bad faith denial of an insurance claim.”) with Washington v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 585 F.Supp. 517, 520 (D.D.C.1984) . We find it unnecessary to divine whether the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an insurance contract between the parties and a breach thereof by the defendant is an element of a bad faith refusal claim
B. holding that the district of columbia is among the many jurisdictions that have recognized a cause of action in tort for the bad faith refusal of an insurer to pay
C. holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith
D. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
E. holding that no cause of action for bad faith exists when insurer has reasonable grounds to contest liability
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.