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]: are reasonably susceptible to two different interpretations, and therefore are ambiguous. See Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Keller Transp., Inc., 382 Mont. 72, 365 P.3d 465, 470 (Mont. 2016). Montana law construes ambiguous provisions “against the insurer and in favor of extending coverage.” Id. We therefore reject United Fire’s argument that the Premises Endorsements limit coverage to incidents that occurred on the St. George premises. Because the Premises Endorsements purport to cover claims “arising out of ... the use of’ the St. George premises, they are sufficiently capacious to include coverage for bodily injury in Montana that flows from or grows out of the use of the St. George premises. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferrin, 311 Mont. 155, 54 P.3d 21, 23 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Thus, United Fire had a duty to defend 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity (B) holding that the phrase arising out of the use is ambiguous and interpreting it as originating from or growing out of or flowing from (C) holding that insurance provisions excluding damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles subject to registration and damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles if the injury or damage occurs away from the insured premises were ambiguous because together they could be read in four different ways (D) holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear (E) holding phrase arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as contained in um policy should be given same interpretation as in automobile liability policies
[A]: holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity


[Q]: include the element that elevates the crime to a higher level.” As we noted in State v. Bean, 153 N.H. 380 (2006), “[i]n Glanville, the State, although not required to do so under Johnson, attempted to charge the defendant with a specific variant of the crime allegedly attempted, but failed to accurately set forth that variant in the indictment.” Bean, 153 N.H. at 384; see Johnson, 144 N.H. at 178. Indeed, Glanville recognized that all that was required “[t]o charge the defendant with attempted armed robbery, class A felony, [was for] the indictment ... to allege that the defendant (1) with a purpose to commit armed robbery, (2) committed acts constituting a substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” Glanville, 145 N.H. at 634 (emphasis added); cf. Casanova, 164 N.H. at 566 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the indictment in this case 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because statutory variants of an underlying crime are not elements of an attempt to commit the underlying crime jurors are not required to unanimously find which specific statutory variant the defendant intended to commit it is sufficient that they unanimously conclude that the defendant intended to commit any of the applicable statutory variants (B) holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred (C) holding that firstdegree murder is one crime although the defendant can commit the crime in several ways (D) recognizing that entrapment is a statutory defense rooted in the notion that congress could not have intended to criminally punish those who commit elements of crime but are induced by the government to commit the acts and that outrageous conduct defense is rooted in constitutional law (E) holding that an individual cannot attempt to commit murder of the second or third degree because the crime of attempt is a specific intent crime and an attempt to commit second or third degree murder would require proof that the individual intended to perpetrate an unintentional killing which is logically impossible
[A]: holding that an employer who caused his agent to commit a crime in another county was deemed to have been personally present where the crime occurred


[Q]: The question here is not whether he intended to defeat jurisdiction but whether he filed in conscious disregard of proper jurisdiction. Those are different propositions. Although these arguments bear some real similarity, they do not intersect. The Frenches’ counsel’s affidavit also stated that he had believed that the federal court might have been able to retain jurisdiction over the entirety had it chosen to do so. That was a mistake in an understanding of the law, not a mistake of fact. As pointed out by the Eastland court in Parker, the issue focused on the question of whether the record showed that claimant had made “a good faith mistake” by initially filing in a (federal) court without jurisdiction over the claim. The court found that the claimant had not acted in good faith (<HOLDING>) and that it was not necessary for the 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss (B) holding that the court need not accept as true  unwarranted factual inferences (C) recognizing that the partys factual complaint if taken as true affirmatively established that the other tribunal had no jurisdiction (D) holding that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction only precludes the relitigation of the issue of whether the first tribunal had jurisdiction (E) recognizing that when considering pretrial motions attacking the sufficiency of an indictment or information the factual allegations in the states pleadings are taken as true
[A]:
recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss