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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: judgment action the Court should consider the following factors: (1) avoiding needless determination of state law issues; (2) discouraging litigants from filing declaratory actions as a means of forum shopping; and (3) avoiding duplica-tive litigation. Id. In addition, the Court should retain jurisdiction on a declaratory judgment action where it is necessary to avoid piecemeal litigation. Snodgrass v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 147 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir.1998). The Court has already concluded that § 616D.030 does not preclude Plaintiffs state law claims, therefore, declining to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claim would result in piecemeal litigation. Because a declaratory action is a procedural remedy, the Court grants leav 956 P.2d 117, 119-20 (1998) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding  616d030 barred employees actions where employees sued the state industrial insurance system alleging bad faith administration of their workers compensation claims (B) holding that the peculiar risk doctrine has no application to employees of independent contractors whose claims fall within the workers compensation system (C) holding  616d030 barred employees action where employee alleged the insurance carrier acted in bad faith in handling the claim (D) recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim (E) holding  616d030 did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a tortious discharge action for filing a workers compensation claim because the statutory scheme applies only to the administration of the act

A: (A)
****
Q: of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue. 6 . The Supreme Court of Connecticut has already rejected the ¡ex loci delicti rule in workers’ compensation actions in favor of “interest analysis” and the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” approach. See Simaitis v. Flood, 182 Conn. 24, 29-33, 437 A.2d 828, 831-32 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 181 (1971). 7 . See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-555 (1977) (measure of wrongful death recovery equal to value of decedent’s life and expenses); Marko v. Stop and Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550, 553, 364 A.2d 217, 219 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Halstead II, supra, 535 F.Supp. at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective (B) holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control (C) recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense (D) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability (E) recognizing strict product liability actions

A: (E)
****
Q: was approved by the family court; nevertheless, paragraph seventeen originated as “a provision in a written contract to submit to arbitration” within the meaning of the statute. The family court’s approval and merger of the agreement into an order does not insulate the arbitration provision from compliance with section 15-48-10(a). Given the strict construction of section 15-48-10 mandated by the supreme court, we conclude the arbitration clause contained in paragraph seventeen of the agreement had to comply with section 15-48-10(a) to be enforceable. See Ebert v. Ebert, 320 S.C. 331, 338, 465 S.E.2d 121, 125 (Ct.App. 1995) (contract principles should be applied to a separation agreement approved by the family court); Bogan v. Bogan, 298 S.C. 139, 142, 378 S.E.2d 606, 608 (Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, it was error for the family 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the government was bound by an agreement it treated as binding although it preceded the formal plea agreement (B) holding that an unapproved settlement agreement is binding on the parties even though not yet approved by the court (C) holding that even though an agreement was approved by the family court it retained its character as an agreement for purposes of legal analysis (D) holding that where the parties fail to reach an agreement as to the character nature or type of release to be used an essential element of the agreement is not established (E) holding that plaintiff was not the prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorneys fees even where the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement because there was insufficient judicial sanctioning of the alteration of the parties legal relationship

A:
(C)
****