Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Here the facts are undisputed. Where the facts upon which liability is claimed or denied under an insurance policy are undisputed and the existence or amount of liability depends solely upon a construction of the policy, the question presented is one of law and this court reviews the finding de novo. See Tonka, 9 F.3d at 52; Auto-Owners, 667 F.2d at 721. Substantial Probability A review of Minnesota and Eighth Circuit decisions recognizes the fundamental premise that an insurance policy protects an insured from fortuitous loss. For example, if a budding contractor suffers a loss because of unknowing mistakes or carelessness, the resulting damage is intended to be covered. If, however, the loss is incurred due to intentional acts, no coverage is intended. See Bartlett, 240 N.W.2d at 313 (<HOLDING>). While an insured has a reasonable expectation 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the loss of a contract failed to constitute ascertainable loss under cutpa (B) holding that officers reliance on accountant negated a finding that he acted consciously voluntarily intentionally knowingly or recklessly in his failure to pay tax (C) holding that insurer who after being told of occurrence contacted insureds attorney for information should have issued reservation of rights letter within a reasonable time after  it was informed of the occurrence (D) holding that contractor who knowingly violated contract specifications consciously controlled risk of loss precluding an occurrence (E) holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand
Output (English): holding that insurer who after being told of occurrence contacted insureds attorney for information should have issued reservation of rights letter within a reasonable time after  it was informed of the occurrence