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: 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

Answer: holding action by insured against his own insurer under uninsured motorist provisions of policy not a direct action within section 1332c proviso

Question: the future because she continues to own and operate Helping Hands and intends to remain in the childcare services profession. Docket No. 17 at 112. She posits no other basis for establishing her standing to seek prospective relief against the Secretary. Docket No. 26 at 6-9. Her status as the owner and operator of a child-care facility does not provide her with standing to seek the declaratory and injunctive relief that she seeks. Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 933-934 (8th Cir.2005) (recognizing that an attorney's status as a member of the bar does not afford him or her standing to prospectively attack the implementation of the professional disciplinary procedures applicable to attorneys practicing in a particular jurisdiction); Brown v. Fauver, 819 F.2d 395, 400, n. 5 (3d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Burns does not allege that she has been
Holding statements: (A) holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness (B) holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change (C) holding that for a legal malpractice claim to accrue a plaintiff need not know the precise extent of his or her damages or even have suffered all of the damages attributable to his or her attorneys negligence (D) holding that a prisoner cannot establish his or her standing to prospectively challenge the validity of a facilitys disciplinary procedures simply by referring to his or her status as an individual incarcerated in that facility (E) holding that an expert can comply with the timing requirement if an experts research even after his or her deposition revealed that the standard of care in his or her community was the same or similar to the standard of care in the community in which he or she is testifying when the injury occurred

Answer: holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness

Question: subject-matter jurisdiction over tort claims that are intertwined with ecclesiastical investigations or proceedings involving the employment or discipline of clergy. Ex parte Bole, supra. In Ex parte Bole, the plaintiff was a pastor emeritus of a church and the defen dant was a lay member of the church. 103 So.3d at 42. After the lay member made statements to the church's hierarchy ("the Conference") concerning the pastor, the Conference initiated an investigation that ultimately led to the pastor being asked to refrain from further activities with the church. 103 So.3d at 48. The pastor sued the lay member, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction 2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780, 790 (1995) (same). "Federal courts: Dausch v. Rykse, 52 F.3d 1425, 1427 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Ayon v. Gourley, 47 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1250
Holding statements: (A) holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty against pastor for sexual relationship with parishioner during the course of pastoral counseling was tantamount to impermissible clergy malpractice claim (B) holding that first amendment barred parishioners negligent hiring and supervision and breach of fiduciary duty claims against pastor and church for sexual contact that occurred between pastor and parishioner during the course of a counseling relationship (C) holding that negligent retention and supervision claims based upon a pastors sexual contact with parishioners was barred by the first amendment (D) holding that first amendment barred adults breach of fiduciary duty claim against pastor for actions that occurred when parishioner was a minor (E) holding that first amendment barred negligent supervision claim against a church regarding sexual relationship between adult parishioner and priest during the course of a marital counseling

Answer:
holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty against pastor for sexual relationship with parishioner during the course of pastoral counseling was tantamount to impermissible clergy malpractice claim