Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): policy. (Dkt. No. 345, Ex. 1 at APP00005 — 6; Dkt. No. 349, Ex. 42 at APP00961-62, APP00973.) 13 . The plaintiffs also alleged a claim relating to an improper MDL Fund deduction, but later abandoned that claim. 14 . Even assuming that the O’Quinn Firm were entitled to coverage under the 2001 Primary Policy, it is highly doubtful that coverage under the 2001 Excess Policy would ever be triggered because under the terms of the O'Quinn Firm’s settlement with National Union, National Union did not pay, did not admit liability, and was not held liable to pay the full amount of its indemnity under the 2001 Primary Policy. (Dkt. Nos. 380, 381 & 385). The plain language of the 2001 Excess Policy requires otherwise. See Citigroup Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 649 F.3d 367 (5th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>) 15 . Lexington also argues that “any matter 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insured was not required to suffer an excess judgment before it could sue its excess insurer and primary insurer for bad faith failure to settle where it was alleged the insurers arbitrarily refused to settle and insured was required to pay 1 million in settlement to avoid near certainty of larger judgment that would exceed all available coverage (B) holding that the excess carrier was liable only for the insureds deductible which was not covered by the primary insurer (C) holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend (D) holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage (E) holding that excess coverage in four policies was not triggered until primary insurer satisfied the requirements necessary to trigger the excess insurers coverage and paid the full amount of its limits
Output (English): holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend