Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by insured; insured not directed by government to remediate site; action against insured by those remediating the property pursuant to government cleanup directive; held: suit for "damages"). Under Hills, there is insurance coverage in connection with this second category of sites. ¶ 7. The third category presents a situation where the insured is responsible for at least part of the contamination of a site that it does not own, and has been directed by a government to remediate the site, but has not done so. The insured is sued by the government to recover money it spent to clean up the site. There is no insurance coverage in connection with the scenarios encompassed by category three. Regent Ins. Co. v. City of Manitowoc, 205 Wis. 2d 450, 463, 556 N.W.2d 405 (Ct. App. 1996) . Johnson Controls argues that the supreme
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an action by plaintiffs who had a legal obligation to conduct cleanup pursuant to a  106 order and then sought costs for cleanup from other prps was the quintessential action for contribution
B. holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a  113f contribution action
C. holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under  113f
D. holding plans suit against law firm for constructive trust was a suit for appropriate equitable relief
E. holding that where the government sues an insured to recover incurred cleanup costs under  107a4a of the cercla  or to impose a plan for remediation that action is not a suit for damages but is rather a suit for equitable monetary relief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.