Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
consent when settling or investigating the merits of a claim and the court was not permitted to write such a clause into the policy. Id. (citing Dear v. Scottsdale I eaeh-of-contract action was precluded because the policy gave Zurich the right to investigate and settle the claims at issue. 2. Negligence In its live petition, Methodist alleged Zurich, McKenney, and Vu breached a purported duty to exercise ordinary care when handling the Riegert and Fulton-Perez claims. Appellees moved for summary judgment on the ground that Texas law has not recognized a cause of action by an insured for its insurer’s negligent handling of an insurance claim in any context other than Stowers. See G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. Am. Indem. Co., 15 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Tex. Comm’n App.1929, holding approved) . Appellees again relied on Duddlesten, in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend
B. holding that an insurance company does not act in bad faith solely because it fails to accept a settlement offer within the deadline set by the injured persons attorney but that a jury question on the reasonableness of the insurers actions arose when an insurance company failed to respond to a deadline to settle a claim within policy limits when the company had knowledge of clear liability and special damages exceeding the policy limits
C. holding bad faith not merely negligence must be proved if insurer is to be held liable for damages over policy limits for refusing to settle
D. holding the insurer liable for failing to settle the claim when time was of the essence
E. recognizing generally a liability insurer may be liable in tort for failing to accept a reasonable settlement demand within policy limits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.