Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
193 (1942) (permanent or indefinite employment); Miller v. Riata Cadillac Co., 517 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. 1974) (indefinite employment); Cooper v. Vitraco, Inc., 320 F.Supp. 239 (D.V.I. 1970) (Virgin Islands law) (lifetime employment); Silverman v. Bemot, 218 Va. 650, 239 S.E.2d 118 (1977) (lifetime employment); Rua v. Bowyer Smokeless Coal Co., 84 W.Va. 47, 99 S.E. 213 (1919); Dow v. Shoe Corp. of America, F.2d 165 (7th Cir.1960) (Wisconsin law) (lifetime employment). 3 . In Easter v. Kass-Berger, Inc., 121 A.2d 868, 870 (D.C.Mun.App.1956), for example, a local trial court held that an employment contract for an express term of two years fell within the statute. This holding is entirely consistent with the conventional interpretation accepted by local courts. See Cooper, 365 A.2d at 629 ; see also Farrow, 663 F.2d at 207 n. 29
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims
B. holding that the convention and us implementing statutes do not recognize an exception for seaman employment contracts and concluding that such contracts are commercial for purposes of same
C. holding that asbestosrelated losses to building are intangible or incorporeal and are thus excluded from insurance coverage
D. holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage
E. holding that contracts for an indefinite period are excluded from the statutes coverage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.