Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
If the trial court concludes that the agreement is procedurally unconscionable, the trial court must also determine whether the agreement is substantively unconscionable on the basis that it limits discovery and noneconomic damages. See, e.g., Prieto v. Healthcare & Ret. Corp. of Am., 919 So.2d 531, 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“The agreement herein deprives the nursing home resident of significant remedies provided for by the statutes. Specifically, it limits non-economic [sic] damages, bars punitive damages and attorney’s fees, and restricts access to discovery necessary to prove statutory violations. For these reasons, we conclude that the agreement is substantively unconscionable.” (footnote omitted)); Romano ex rel. Romano v. Manor Care, Inc., 861 So.2d 59, 62-63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ; see also Woebse, 977 So.2d at 634-35
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellate attorneys fees were incurred during the divorce proceedings and were awardable by the trial judge
B. holding agreement was substantively unconscionable because it prevented arbiter from awarding punitive damages and attorneys fees awards that were intended by the legislature to be awardable
C. holding that even though attorneys fees were not properly awardable under rule 68 costs excluding fees were mandatory
D. holding that the state is immune from punitive awards
E. holding that the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable because it precluded the award of attorney fees which were authorized in the relevant ohio consumer protection statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.