Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the insured as of the date of the casualty and subsequent events may be significant in determining the insured’s interest.” DeBellis, 77 N.J. at 436, 390 A.2d 1171 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). The court found that plaintiff DeBellis had not been made whole by the redemption and that allowing the carrier to pay nothing created a windfall for the carrier. Id. at 437-38, 390 A.2d 1171. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that DeBellis’s interest in the property “was equivalent to at least the amount expended for that interest some three months before the fire” plus 20% interest plus partial refund of the premium for the period after title reverted to the redeeming Teeds. Id. at 438. See also Miller v. N.J. Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 82 N.J. 594, 598-99, 414 A.2d 1322 (1980)  The Miller court reiterated: With respect to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that two claimants separate cases who had lost title to property through in rem tax foreclosure which properties were destroyed by fire postforeclosure retained an insurable interest in the property under their insurance contracts the claimants continued to occupy the properties ignorant of the tax foreclosures
B. holding that any property in which the taxpayer has any right title or interest is subject to foreclosure proceeding including property in which others claim an interest so long as all persons having liens or claiming any interest in the property are joined as parties to the suit
C. holding that property interest in continued expectation of public employment does not include right to actually occupy position
D. holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire
E. holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.