instruction:
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:
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
answer:
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


question:
Chief Judge: The appellant, Craig G. Falk, appeals from a July 8, 1996, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) decision denying his claim service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As the appellant has limited his appeal to the denial of that claim, the Court deems the appellant to have abandoned his right to appeal with respect to the denial of entitlement to benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. Bucklinger v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 435, 436 (1993); see also Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34-35 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Upon consideration of the pleadings of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal (B) holding that issues not presented in an appellants initial brief to the court need not be considered under this courts rules (C) holding that claims not raised in an appellants initial brief to our court are waived (D) holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned (E) holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief
answer:
holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal


question:
and quotation marks omitted). See also Dees v. Wilson, 796 F.Supp. 474, 475 (D.Kan.1992) (“A motion to reconsider is appropriate if the court has obviously misapprehended a party’s position, the facts, or mistakenly has decided issues not presented for determination.”). In addition, “arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsidera issues. Plaintiffs remaining arguments are new arguments or arguments offering supporting facts for which plaintiff has had ample opportunity to argue on prior occasions. These issues are again not properly before the court as they are arguments raised for the first time in plaintiffs motion to reconsider. Thus, the court declines to decide the merits of these arguments. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In sum, plaintiff has not presented any 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions (B) holding that reconsideration should not be granted where the moving party seeks to introduce additional facts not in the record on the original motion or advances new arguments or issues that could have been raised on the original motion (C) holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally (D) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration (E) holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision
answer:

holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions