Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for this court to certify issues of state law to the Maryland Court of Appeals that the Fourth Circuit specifically declined to certify in that case. 9 . E.g., Insurance Co. of North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 633 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir.1980). 10 . E.g., American Home Products Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 748 F.2d 760 (2d Cir.1984). 11 . E.g., Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 682 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1982). 12 . E.g., Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 667 F.2d 1034 (D.C.Cir.1982). 13 . Some courts adopting the injury-in-fact trigger consider it to be the time when an injury first comes into being, and expert testimony is required to pinpoint this date. See, e.g., Uniroyal v. Home Ins. Co., 707 F.Supp. 1368, 1387-90 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (<HOLDING>). 14 .The insurer argued that the last policy 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a job offer which required a claimant to make a daily round trip commute of 232 miles was unreasonable even though the claimant would be provided with a motel room because this would require the claimant to be away from home at least four nights a week (B) holding that risk is measured at the point when the attorneys time was committed to the case (C) recognizing the same point (D) holding inter alia that the issue of whether a naval yard worker was exposed to a manufacturers product was for the jury (E) holding that coverage was triggered only at that point in time one week after each claimant was exposed to the toxic product
Output (English): holding inter alia that the issue of whether a naval yard worker was exposed to a manufacturers product was for the jury