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.

Example Input: state witnesses regarding their credibility during the course of the trial in chief. Angela Sweat had negotiated with state prosecution involving armed robbery charges, the facts of the plea agreement for impeachment was not permitted by the trial court. This witness was the sole evidence against the petitioner and had the jury known of her motive to lie they would have found me not guilty of the armed robbery charges. This was a denial of my right to a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the jury would have found me not guilty. Generally, federal courts should not review a state trial judge’s rulings with respect to the admissibility of evidence. Shaw v. Boney, 695 F.2d 528, 530 (11th Cir.1983). Even if the trial court’ h Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Evidentiary rulings are within the broad 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge (B) holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity (C) holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate (D) holding that where the sole defense was insanity excluded testimony was material a crucial critical and highly significant factor (E) holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
Example Output: holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge

Example Input: 558, 563, 564 S.E.2d 94, 96 (2002). DISCUSSION Moody argues the circuit court erred in granting Dairy-land’s motion for summary judgment, asserting Dairyland did not make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage because it failed to offer coverage in amounts less than the statutory minimum limits. We disagree. “The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.” Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, 353 S.C. 31, 40, 577 S.E.2d 202, 207 (2003).. Moreover, “[w]here the terms of the statute are clear, [this Court] must apply those terms according to their literal meaning.” Brown v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 515, 560 S.E.2d 410, 414 (2002); see also Rowe v. Hyatt, 321 S.C. 366, 369, 468 S.E.2d 649, 650 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In relevant part, section 38-73-470 provides 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning (B) holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning (C) holding when interpreting a statute words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statutes operation (D) holding that where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation (E) holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning
Example Output: holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning

Example Input: toll the statute of limitations unless the defendants made representations that they knew or should have known would induce the plaintiff to put off bring ing suit and the plaintiff did, in fact, delay-in reliance on the representations. Olsen, 388 Mass. at 176, 445 N.E.2d 609. The “hypoallergenic” label was not intended to dissuade potential plaintiffs from bringing suit against the glove manufacturer, and there is no evidence that the labeling was fraudulent. Thus, estoppel will not toll the statute of limitations in this case. Other Massachusetts courts have found summary judgment to be appropriate in cases where plaintiffs could be charged with notice of their latex allergies outside of the statutory limitations period. See Zamboni v. Aladan Corp., 304 F.Supp.2d 218 (D.Mass.2004)(<HOLDING>); Starer v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2003 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal (B) holding that cause of action accrued before formal diagnosis of latex allergy when plaintiff had previously suspected that she might be allergic to latex (C) holding that cause of action against latex glove manufacturers accrued when plaintiff first suspected a latex allergy (D) holding that the payments accrued (E) holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale
Example Output:
holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal