Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
A lie does not become the truth simply because the person hearing it knows that it is a lie. The premise underlying this argument reveals the true nature of the matic because they are effectively invoking estoppel against the government. The Defendants contend that because the government’s remission of payment represents that the government entity has evaluated all the relevant information and (presumably) determined that a claim is valid, the government should be estopped from arguing that the claim is invalid in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The premise underlying this argument is contrary to our longstanding presumption that estoppel against the government is impermissible. See, e.g., Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 382, 386, 68 S.Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10 (1947) ; see also Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim
B. holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract
C. holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims
D. holding that an insurance agent who does not procure the insurance coverage requested breaches his or her duty suggesting a negligence claim
E. holding that a farmer who obtained federal insurance based on improper advice by an agent of the federal crop insurance corporation that his entire crop qualified for insurance could not recover for the loss of his crop because the government could not be estopped from denying the claim by the agents erroneous statements
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.