Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
must be a substantial one, a “well-founded, rule of domestic policy established to protect the morals, safety or welfare of our people.” Bevins, 195 S.W. at 155 (emphasis supplied). Where no Kentucky resident has been affected, rarely will that standard be met. It is not met here where the competing public policies — supposing a Kentucky policy against this UIM exclusion — concern only the balance to be struck between required insurance coverage and insurance affordability, a balance different states have assessed differently. Since here no Kentucky resident is affected, nothing requires a Kentucky court to interfere with the balance Pennsylvania has chosen for its citizens. Cf. United Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Frye, 381 Ill.App.3d 960, 320 Ill.Dec. 639, 887 N.E.2d 783 (2008) ; Cherokee Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sanches,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law
B. holding that illinois public policy did not require the application of illinois law to an illinois accident involving only indiana residents insured in indiana
C. holding that geographic limitation in illinois franchise law prevents its application to dispute with outofstate franchisor notwithstanding express illinois choiceoflaw clause
D. holding that a federal due process malicious prosecution claim against an indiana police officer could proceed because indiana law did not provide an adequate postdeprivation tort law remedy
E. holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.