Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for its adjusters to follow, (2) failed to train its employees on the specifics of Oklahoma insurance law, and (3) failed to independently investigate Plaintiffs insurance claim. As for Plaintiffs first two allegations of bad faith, we are not persuaded an insurer acts in bad faith under Oklahoma law by simply failing to adopt written standards or provide state-specific training to its employees. We see no basis in the record for a finding of bad faith with respect to Defendant’s general handling of claims and training of employees. As for Plaintiffs third bad-faith allegation, there is no evidence in the record to support a claim that Defendant’s investigation was incomplete or biased in any way. See Timberlake Constr. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 71 F.3d 335, 345 (10th Cir.1995) . Plaintiff further argues Defendant acted in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even though insurance company could have completed claim investigation more quickly delay was not clear and convincing evidence for jury to determine presence of bad faith
B. holding that the defendants were not liable for failing to perform the thorough professional investigation the plaintiff would have preferred
C. holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights
D. holding that under oklahoma law a bad faith claim  premised on inadequate investigation must be supported by a showing that material facts were overlooked or that a more thorough investigation would have produced relevant information
E. holding investigation was not deficient in part because counsel hired an experienced death penalty investigator who conducted a thorough investigation into defendants history
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.