Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): around Miller’s conduct, which could not be determined without his testimony. See, e.g., Med. Protective Co. v. Bubenik, No. 4:06-CV-01639, 2008 WL 5070042, at *27 (E.D.Mo.2008) (“[I]t is clear from the facts of this case that [the defendant’s] testimony was, in fact, highly important to the defense of the medical malpractice claim filed against him.”), aff'd 594 F.3d 1047 (8th Cir.2010). Second, Miller’s failure to appear for his court-ordered deposition led to the entry of default judgment against Medical Assurance, thereby foreclosing trial on the issues of liability and proximate cause and eliminating Medical Assurance’s ability to defend the ease in any way, including by presenting defenses. See, e.g., Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 175 Vt. 355, 830 A.2d 108, 114 (2003) (<HOLDING>); Allstate Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that to constitute prejudice an insureds noncooperation must have significantly hindered or precluded the insurer from presenting a credible defense to the underlying claim (B) holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for negligently failing to claim contribution (C) holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage (D) holding that the insureds ordinary burden to allocate a verdict between covered and noncovered claims does not shift to the insurer unless the insurer had an affirmative duty to defend the underlying claims (E) holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss
Output (English): holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage