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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
--------
Question: contract claims under general liability policies. See Keystone Filler & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. American Mining Ins. Co., 179 F.Supp.2d 432 (M.D.Pa.2002); Redevelopment Auth. of Cambria County v. Int’l Ins. Co., 454 Pa.Super. 374, 685 A.2d 581 (1996) (en banc); see also Augenblick v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 99-3419, 1999 WL 975118 (E.D.Pa. Oct.8, 1999). General liability policies provide the insured coverage for personal injury or property damage resulting from an “occurrence,” and are intended “to protect the insured from liability fo e in Redevelopment Authority — that there is no ‘occurrence’ if the underlying claim is one merely for breach-of-contract — has been followed by numerous state and federal courts sitting in Pennsylvania.”) (citing cases); Augenblick, 1999 WL 975118, at *2, 5 (<HOLDING>). In contrast to those cases, U.S. Specialty’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer (B) holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract (C) holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action (D) holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract (E) holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident

Answer: holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer


Question: results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to take or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence. (b) Nothing in this section is intended to exclude from evidence statements made during a polygraph examination which are otherwise admissible. Under the plain language of this rule, the military judge’s ruling was correct. By adding this Rule, the 1991 amendment to the Manual for Courts-Martial restored the armed forces to the approach followed in the 1969 Manual. Cf. United States v. Gipson, 24 M.J. 246, 253 (C.M.A.1987)(2-1 decision holding that the trial judge has the discretion to admit the results of polygraph examinations); United States v. Williams, 39 M.J. 555, 558 (A.C.M.R.1994)(<HOLDING>). The concerns behind this rule include: that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding ban violated the sherman act (B) holding that the governments use of classified evidence in detentionpendingdeportation proceedings violated detainees due process rights and inter alia justified his release (C) holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that other persons had a motive to kill the victims because inter alia such evidence was speculative (D) holding that the absolute ban on polygraph evidence violated due process and the right to present evidence citing inter alia chambers v mississippi 410 us 284 93 sct 1038 35 led2d 297 1973 (E) holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material

Answer: holding ban violated the sherman act


Question: in order to be regarded as independent.” Sutherland v. Sutherland, 958 A.2d 235, 241 (Del.Ch.2008) (citation and footnote omitted). Accordingly, Tuttle’s friendship with Singer is not a “substantial reason” indicating that he was incapable of making decisions in the best interests of the corporation. II. Without directly resolving the question of Lauren Brisky’s independence, the majority notes that her status as a named defendant and as a member of the Audit Committee “cast some doubt on her ability to independently consider the Shareholders’ claims against the directors!)]” Again, I disagree. Status as a defendant, in and of itself, does not disqualify a person from serving on an SLC. See Kindt v. Lund, No. Civ. A. 17751, 2003 WL 21453879, at *3 (Del. Ch. May 30, 2003) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Katell v. Morgan Stanley Group, Inc., Civ. A. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an slc members status as a defendant does not create a lack of independence (B) holding that an illegal immigrants status as a nonresident does not create an exemption allowing him to drive without a valid georgia license (C) holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause (D) holding mere status as a director does not create liability where the actions complained of were taken by individual managerial employees of a corporate entity (E) holding that filing an answer  does not invoke the status as a defendant in plaintiffs lawsuit

Answer:
holding that an illegal immigrants status as a nonresident does not create an exemption allowing him to drive without a valid georgia license