Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
S.Ct. 478. Central to the Court’s conclusion in Ingersoll-Rand was the fact that the state law in question was not "a generally app at Ingersoll-Rand does not require preemption of state-law malpractice claim against insurers). 5 . MVP makes the claim that “[ajlmost all Courts of Appeals that have considered the question agree that state causes of action asserted against non-fiduciaries are preempted by ERISA.” MVP Br. at 26. The three circuit court cases which MVP cites, however, .involve suits brought by employees to recover plan benefits. See Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 418 (4th Cir.1993) (finding that an employee’s suit against administrator and underwriter for denied medical benefits was preempted); Gibson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 915 F.2d 414, 417 (9th Cir.1990) ; Howard v. Parisian, Inc. 807 F.2d 1560, 1565
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an employees suit against agent for denied disability benefits was preempted
B. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
C. holding that disability pension benefits could be offset against both temporary and total permanent disability compensation benefits
D. holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted
E. holding that disability benefits are not retirementtype benefits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.