Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
handed Kerri Rigsby the Ford Report, which contained King’s note; and 3) the Rigsbys attended an adjuster meeting convened by State Farm during which the company’s trainers told the adjusters that Katrina was a “ “water storm’ and that all major damage to homes was caused by flooding.” These allegations formed the basis of much of the trial and they do not significantly diverge from the Rigsbys’ original allegations. State Farm is correct that the Rigsbys relied on Dr. Ralph Sinno’s “wracking” theory at trial, but wracking is not a “theory of fraud” about which the Rigsbys could have been whistleblowers. As detailed above, the Rigsbys alleged that State Farm fraudulently misclassified wind damage as flood damage through a variety of means. St F.3d 447, 448-49, 451-52 (5th Cir.1995) . The Rigsbys’ knowledge was also independent
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding individual defendants subject to suit
B. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office
C. holding that relators who brought suit against a competitor and other defendants were not original sources
D. holding state immune from suit brought in state court
E. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.