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.

[Q]: to obtain the benefit of the bond, for which it paid a significant premium, only through legal action. Accordingly, Olympic Steamship applies here. Colorado Structures, 125 Wn. App. at 928 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). We agree. ¶27 Lastly, in McGreevy, where this court awarded reasonable attorney fees in addition to the limits of the insurance policy, we reasoned, “when an insurer unsuccessfully contests coverage, it has placed its interests above the insured. Our decision in Olympic Steamship remedies this inequity by requiring that the insured be made whole.” McGreevy, 128 Wn.2d at 39-40. Likewise, West placed “its interests” above that of Structures. Id. Structures should be awarded attorney fees under Olympic Steamship, so as to be made “whole.” Dayton, 124 Wn.2d at 280 (<HOLDING>)- Without the application of Olympic Steamship 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the contract was not authorized by law (B) recognizing that under georgia law attorneys fees are allowed where authorized by statute or contract (C) holding because an award of attorney fees is discretionary court may consider attorney fees in relation to the underlying equities in the case (D) holding that an award of attorney fees was authorized by ocga  13111 a 3 when the requirements of that statute were satisfied (E) holding that a court has power to award attorney fees when authorized by contract statute or recognized ground of equity
[A]: holding the contract was not authorized by law


[Q]: from California. A Michigan federal magistrate judge ordered his return to California. The following day, a criminal complaint based on the September 1995 heroin sales was filed against Jackson. Jackson was never served, did not appear, and the government subsequently dismissed the complaint without prejudice on November 20,1996. On January 6, 1998, Jackson was indicted for distribution of herom in the September 1995 transactions. Jackson eventually was returned to Michigan in November 1998, appeared before a magistrate judge on November 24, 1998, and was arraigned on December 1,1998. Trial was originally scheduled for March 25, 1999. On March 22, 1999, Jackson’s counsel, Stephen Rabaut, moved to dismiss the mdictment based on United States v. Ovalle, 136 F.3d 1092 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The district court dismissed the indictment 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that eastern michigans federal grand jury system violated equal protection (B) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (C) holding that the state law violated equal protection principles (D) holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial (E) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
[A]: holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection


[Q]: and to specify the period of time during which the interception is authorized. 26 . See United States v. Figueroa, 757 F.2d 466, 472 (2d Cir.1985). 27 . Id. The Second Circuit has held that compliance with Title III amounts to compliance with the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1121 (2d Cir.1993) ("Surveillance that is properly authorized and carried out under Title III complies with the fourth amendment.”). 28 . 18 U.S.C. § 2515. 29 . Id. § 2518(10)(a). 30 . United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 527, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). 31 . 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 32 . See id. at 357-59, 88 S.Ct. 507. 33 . Donovan, 429 U.S. at 436 n. 24, 97 S.Ct. 658. 34 . Cf. United States v. Duran, 189 F.3d 1071, 1085 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 35 . In the context of traditional land 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a modern cell phone is a computer and not just another purse or address book so that the potential invasion of privacy in a search of a cell phone is greater than in a search of a container in a conventional sense (B) holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone (C) holding that a wiretap orders failure to identify the electronic serial number on the interceptees new cell phone was not a warrantless search requiring suppression under katz (D) holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest (E) holding that finley authorizes a police officer to search the electronic contents of a cell phone recovered from the area within an arrestees immediate control
[A]:
recognizing that a modern cell phone is a computer and not just another purse or address book so that the potential invasion of privacy in a search of a cell phone is greater than in a search of a container in a conventional sense