In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[Q]: function of determining the validity of a claim from the function of fixing the claim’s monetary value. See In re Devitt, 126 B.R. 212, 215 (Bankr.D.Md.1991). Section 502 therefore required the bankruptcy court to “determine[ ] the validity of the claim[s] and the amount allowed.” Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp,, 843 F.2d 636, 646 (2d Cir.1988). It was then but a short and logical step for the bankruptcy court to enter a money judgment against Porges, on the basis of its section 502 determination, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and Bankruptcy Rule 9021. Rule 58 directs the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of a prevai 8 L.Ed.2d 939 (1990); see generally United States v. Indrelunas, 411 U.S. 216, 221-22, 93 S.Ct. 1562, 1564-65, 36 L.Ed.2d 202 (1973) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The entry of a money judgment also finds 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the time to file an appeal never began to run because the clerk failed to enter a separate judgment as required by rule 58 (B) holding that because the district courts order failed to comply with rule 58 appellants notice of appeal cannot be considered late (C) holding that in order to prevent uncertainty rule 58 must be mechanically applied (D) holding that a district courts marginal order granting summary judgment did not meet the strict requirements of rule 58 because a party may reasonably be confused as to the standing of its ease when a decision is rendered in such an informal manner (E) holding rule 58 and bankruptcy rule 9021 applied in decision denying proofs of claim following adversary proceeding
[A]: (C)


[Q]: improperly determined that the “neither expected nor intended” language in the CGL policy constitutes an exclusion. This conclusion alone, however, does not bar coverage for Ribi; it merely imposes on it the burden of establishing an “occurrence.” ¶21 The CGL policy’s core provision defines “occurrence” by reference to those accidents or conditions that result in damage that was “neither expected nor intended.” This provision contains no temporal component and focuses instead on the insured’s expectations regarding damages. Thus, acts that take place over a significant period of time, but cause unexpected damage fall within the definition of an “occurrence” and are entitled to coverage. Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Strainer (1983), 204 Mont. 162, 663 P.2d 338 overruled on other grounds (<HOLDING>). ¶22 Here the District Court found that Ribi 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that intentional acts do not exclude coverage under the occurrence language unless the injury was expected or intended (B) holding that an objective standard to determine whether the injury was intended or expected would be inconsistent with insurance coverage for damage resulting from ordinary negligence (C) holding that under georgia law similar language was virtually absolute and noting that it intended to exclude liability coverage for all liabilities arising out of pollution (D) holding that under maine law the occurrence provision focuses on the property damage after the initial discharge and whether it was expected or intended from the insureds point of view (E) holding that where policies exclude coverage for injuries that are intended or expected the exclusion is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result even though the bodily injury that does result is different either in character or magnitude from the injury that was intended
[A]: (A)


[Q]: has any significant contact with California. DTK-NJ has employees in New Jersey, and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. DTK-NJ has no employees located outside of New Jersey. (Def. Reply to PI. Mem. In Opp’n to Mot. to Transfer, Decl. of Alice Lin ¶ 3.) Although DTK-NJ receives its products for resale from DTK (located in California), see id. ¶ 4, this is not sufficient to establish the minimum contacts described in International Shoe, see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473-74, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Under Burger King Corp., the fact that DTK directs its products to DTK-NJ is evidence of DTK establishing contacts with New Jersey as opposed to DTK-NJ establishing sufficient minimum contacts with California. 471 U.S. at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (<HOLDING>); see also Asahi Metal Indus. v. Superior 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an intentional tort knowingly directed at a forum resident satisfies the minimum contacts test (B) holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum (C) holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state (D) holding that minimum contacts exist if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities (E) holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas
[A]:
(D)