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: business is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved on summary judgment. State Auto disputes Appellants’ arguments and also posits in the alternative that, even if Kraus was an “insured” at the time he committed the acts in question, Appellants’ false imprisonment claims were subsumed by their sexual assault claims. As discussed below, we conclude that the district court correctly found that the determination of whether Kraus was an “insured” under the policy is a question of law where the pertinent facts are undisputed, that the policy is not ambiguous, and that Kraus’s acts fall within the Criminal-Acts Exclusion. Because we affirm the district court on those grounds, we do not reach State Auto’s alternative argument in support 2d 349, 633 N.W.2d 707 (Wis.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Michelet v. Scheuring Sec. Servs. Inc., 680 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question (B) holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question (C) holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred (D) holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury (E) holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact

A: (B)
****
Q: S. Sprouse Residuary Trust, which is a named defendant in this action. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer only to Mr. Sprouse in this opinion. 4 .Ms. Bagwell, who is not a lawyer, also testified that she thought that the original five-year lease was on "a year[-]to[-]year basis.” 5 . Mr. Sprouse did not take issue with the $534 award for the damage to Mr. Ellis's corn crop. 6 . See also 2 Friedman on Leases § 14.301, at 915 (noting that payment of increased rent under an option constitutes an acceptance of the option). 7 . Painter v. Town of Groveland, 79 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla.1955) (finding such a presumption contrary to statute); Branagen v. Winders & Alm, 194 Iowa 461, 187 N.W. 440, 440-41 (Iowa 1922); Schiltz v. Teledirect Int'l, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Iowa Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Elec. Sales Eng’rs, Inc. v. Urban Renewal & 
 Holding statements: (A) holding there was no renewal but finding estoppel on the part of the landlord (B) holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record (C) holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record (D) recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel (E) holding that estoppel was a question of fact

A: (A)
****
Q: 1045 (Fla.2004); Fla. Bar v. McAtee, 674 So.2d 734 (Fla.1996). Further, in Florida Bar v. Brown, 635 So.2d 13, 13 (Fla.1994), this Court stated that a “[cjlear violation of any order or disciplinary status that denies an attorney the license to practice law generally is punishable by disbarment.” In this case, the referee’s report and the record do not sufficiently establish that D’Ambrosio clearly violated this Court’s order of suspension by appearing in court. In addition to the inadequacy of factual findings, the referee’s report also fails to conduct an analysis of the facts in light of the case law. Given these deficiencies in the record and the referee’s report, there is an insufficient basis for this Court to disbar D’Ambrosio. See Fla. Bar v. Rayman, 238 So.2d 594 (Fla.1970) (<HOLDING>); see also Fla. Bar v. Shoureas, 892 So.2d 1002 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that board erred in requiring admission of guilt and repentance as part of the proof of present good character and rehabilitation (B) holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal (C) holding that erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment are not grounds for reversal (D) holding that the evidence did not present the proof necessary to warrant the findings of guilt and disbarment (E) holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence

A:
(D)
****