Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ins. Co., Ltd., 512 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1975) (contract between seamen and vessel owner); T.N.T. Marine Serv., Inc. v. Weaver Shipyards & Dry Docks, Inc., 702 F.2d 585, 587-88 (5th Cir.) (contract for repairs at shipyard), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 847, 104 S.Ct. 151, 78 L.Ed.2d 141 (1983). Panek’s negligence claim that Concordia’s lax security caused the fire or that its failure to prevent the PROWLER from sinking is also maritime in nature. See Butler v. American Trawler Co., Inc., 887 F.2d 20, 21 (1st Cir.1989) (“[Tjhere is admiralty jurisdiction if the tort at issue 1) occurred on navigable waters and 2) bore a significant relation to traditional maritime activities.”); Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 268, 93 S.Ct. 493, 504, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972) . Consequently, the district court could have
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing tort of negligence by words
B. holding that an adverse action occurs when the decision is carried out when it is communicated or actually takes effect
C. holding that a complaint that asserts both admiralty jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction is not an adequate 9h designation to trigger admiralty procedures
D. holding that for the purposes of admiralty jurisdiction a tort occurs where the negligence takes effect not where the negligent act occurred
E. holding that courts apply substantive admiralty law to claims that sound in admiralty regardless of whether the complaint invokes diversity or admiralty jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.