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.

[EX Q]: claims); see also Stewart, 104 N.M. at 748, 726 P.2d at 1378 (“An insurance policy is a contract and is generally governed by the law of contracts, and the rights and duties of the parties are to be determined by its terms.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, we held that 8.75% was the proper interest to be assessed on the contract damages. {40} Like the trial court in Teague-Strebeck, the trial court in our case awarded damages based on the insurance contract— $100,000 in UM coverage. See 1999-NMCA-109, ¶¶63-64, 127 N.M. 603, 985 P.2d 1183 (observing that the plaintiff “was awarded the benefit of its bargain, the extent of insurance coverage promised by [the defendant’s agent]”); cf. Ellis v. Cigna Prop. & Cas. Cos., 1999-NMSC-034, ¶1, 128 N.M. 54, 989 P.2d 429 (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that 8.75% is the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract (B) holding that this courts sixyear statute of limitations is jurisdictional (C) holding that sixyear statute of limitations in  65314 is applicable to violations of  7202 (D) recognizing a sixyear statute of limitations on claims filed under the coal act (E) holding that the sixyear statute of limitations on a written contract is applicable to a cause of action based on a um policy
[EX A]: holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract

[EX Q]: to foreclosure for mortgagors who are in default before initiating foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the National Housing Act, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 1701-x(c)(5) (effective July 30, 2008), and pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Walkers contend that they were never offered counseling services or any other loss-mitigation services before the foreclosure sale. Although the record does not contain evidence indicating that the Walkers were provided counseling or other loss-mitigation services before foreclosure, this court has determined that any alleged failure to comply with loss-mitigation procedures does not constitute a valid defense to an ejectment action following a nonjudicial foreclosure. See Coleman, 104 So.3d at 206 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the alleged failure to exhaust all 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible (B) holding that because the department of revenue is subordinate to the board of tax review in the decision making process the department is not an adversely affected or aggrieved party having standing to petition for judicial review of the boards order reversing a decision of the department (C) holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale (D) holding that in the absence of a statute or controlling authority from our supreme court to the contrary we conclude that the failure of a foreclosing entity to comply with department of housing and urban development or department of veterans affairs lossmitigation requirements may not be raised as a defense to an ejectment action following a nonjudicial foreclosure (E) holding nonparty department of mental health had standing to appeal commitment order regarding person found not guilty by reason of insanity because department had direct interest that was affected by commitment order and because employees of the department conceivably could be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order
[EX A]: holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible

[EX Q]: version of those events, we need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting testimony pertaining to the March 3rd incident because any error would be harmless. Second, and for the sake of completeness, we note that in addition to the previously identified problem of the Federal Rules of Evidence not applying, many courts have permitted the introduction of similar evidence in the context of domestic violence to show intent, motive, and the general nature of the relationship. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 900 A.2d 1155, 1161 (R.I. 2006) (stating that admission of uncharged instances of assault was permissible to show “an escalating pattern of domestic violence tended to establish defendant’s intent”); State v. Williams, 188 Vt. 405, 9 A.3d 315, 320 (2010) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators (B) holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim (C) holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim (D) holding prior instances of domestic assault admissible to show the nature of the parties relationship and explain what might otherwise appear to be incongruous behavior to a jury such as remaining with an abusive partner and delaying a report of abuse (E) holding that prior uncharged sexual conduct between the defendant and the victim is admissible to show their state of intimacy as well as to explain the circumstances surrounding the offense
[EX A]:
holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators