Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
employer begins deducting premiums from the employee’s salary for that purpose the employer has a duty to use reasonable efforts to obtain health care coverage for that employee as soon as possible. Furthermore, the employer has a duty to notify the employee if his application for insurance will be treated differently than other employees. See generally City of Brunswick v. Carney, 187 Ga. App. 634 (1) (a) (371 SE2d 201) (1988). Under the facts of this case, we hold that the trial court correctly found that the employer’s decision to submit Dean’s application only to a prospective insurer and not also to the current provider of group insurance for defendant’s other employees constitutes a breach of that duty. See generally Woodman Co. v. Adair, 164 Ga. App. 603 (294 SE2d 579) (1982) ; Dinnan v. Totis, 159 Ga. App. 352 (283 SE2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred
B. holding the employer breached the duty owed to its employee by erroneously advising the employee he would continue to have coverage for 30 days following his termination of employment under the employers group policy
C. holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction
D. holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness
E. holding that employer did not have duty to protect allegedly intoxicated employee from risk that employee would have automobile accident after leaving work
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.