Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a court-approved $860,000 settlement wherein Continental was released “from the aforesaid arbitration award.” Herman then brought this action for negligent destruction of evidence contending that the arbitration of the personal injury claim was not a bar. Continental’s motion to dismiss, alleging that Herman’s action was precluded by the $860,000 personal injury award, was denied. The case proceeded to trial where the jury was given two presumptions to apply if it found Continental negligent in the destruction of Herman’s wrecked automobile. The jury found by its verdict that Continental was negligent in failing to preserve the Herman vehicle which was a legal cause of loss to the Hermans, and found Herman 65% percent negligent in causing the Allstate, 573 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). In Miller we tracked the origin and 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing breach of contract action for destruction of evidence needed in products liability ease (B) recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach (C) recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract (D) holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach (E) recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law
Output (English): recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract