Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
judgment entry makes clear that what the district court did was properly, albeit belatedly, decide questions of law on the basis of undisputed facts. The interpretation of an insurance policy presents a question of law for the court, not the jury, to decide. See, e.g., Diocese of Winona v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co., 89 F.3d 1386, 1392 (8th Cir.1996); Marren v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 84 F.3d 1068, 1070 (8th Cir.1996). Although the district court should have recognized appellants’ right to a jury trial, the district court correctly decided that it, and not the jury, was the decision-maker on the issue of contract interpretation, even though it effected that decision by improperly declaring the jury advisory. See, e.g., Alexander v. Gerhardt Enterprises, Inc., 40 F.3d at 191-93 ; United States v. Williams, 441 F.2d 637, 645
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law
B. holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion
C. holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment
D. holding courts attempt to recognize actual jury verdict was improper in wake of landgraf but affirming judgment on basis of courts own findings of fact and conclusions of law
E. holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.