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]: citizens of Alabama for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction analysis. This narrow and specialized statute provides in pertinent part: In any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen. Andalusia and Hughes, who are insureds but not parties defendant, contend that a realignment of Lane will make the case into a direct action by Lane against the insurers, and because it is one in which the insureds are not joined as parties defendant, diversity would be destroyed by § 1332(a)(1). This contentio d.2d 73 (1974). But where the s 13 F.Supp. 367, 371 (D.Conn.1970) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 456 F.2d 282 (2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding action by insured against his own insurer under uninsured motorist provisions of policy not a direct action within section 1332c proviso (B) holding that insured cannot bring an action against its insurer for bad faith failure to settle a claim in the absence of an excess verdict (C) holding action by judgment creditor of insured against insurer for bad faith failure to settle claim against insured not a direct action within section 1332c proviso (D) holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith (E) holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second
[EX A]: holding action by insured against his own insurer under uninsured motorist provisions of policy not a direct action within section 1332c proviso

[EX Q]: 375 N.E.2d 1192 (1978). Two of Gunther’s theories are easily eliminated. First, a plaintiff is a member of a protected class if she asserts “a claim based on sex discrimination as a pregnant woman.” White v. University of Mass., 410 Mass. 553, 557, 574 N.E.2d 356 (1991). There is no allegation that Gunther’s termination was motivated by animus toward her pregnancy because at the time of her discharge she was not pregnant and had been working for over eight months in a managerial position with equivalent salary. Second, to the extent that Gunther is claiming she was discriminated against as a single mother, she can not prevail. Parenthood is not listed as a protected class in the statute. See G.L. c. 151B, § 4; cf. Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. 756, 758-59, 682 N.E.2d 1357 (1997) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the claim of pure gender 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (B) recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine (C) holding that it was not a violation of public policy for the defendant to discharge the plaintiff an atwill employee because she was a single mother unwilling to work newly imposed long hours (D) holding that an employee could maintain a claim for constructive discharge in violation of virginias public policy exception to the employment atwill doctrine (E) holding that an atwill employee may not recover for discriminatory discharge under section 1981 because the atwill relationship was not sufficiently contractual under tennessee law
[EX A]: recognizing tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

[EX Q]: acts of fraud, she must satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b) twice. See Emery II, 134 F.3d at 1323. Ms. Goren’s amended complaint fails to allege a “pattern of racketeering activity” with sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b). In fact, Ms. Goren’s attempt to allege a “pattern of racketeering activity” fails on several fronts. The first and most glaring deficiency in the amended complaint is its failure to allege two predicate acts. The amended complaint alleges only one fraudulent transaction — the sale of two bottles of “Essential Minerals” to Ms. Goren. This is simply not enough to state a claim under § 1962(c). Indeed, we have repeatedly held that a plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that “defendants” also defrauded unidentifi 918, 923 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because the single sale to Ms. Goren is the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unspecified allegations that other companies were defrauded by use of the mails in the same manner as plaintiff did not satisfy particularity requirement of rule 9b (B) holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail (C) holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity (D) holding allegations that fraudulent statements were made during fourmonth period insufficient to satisfy rule 9b (E) holding plaintiffs fraud claim failed rule 9b particularity requirement which in turn meant deceptive trade practices claim failed the particularity requirement
[EX A]:
holding a complaint failed to satisfy rule 9b where the allegations were lacking in detail