Given the task definition and input, reply with output. 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.

Training Stables, Inc., 719 P.2d at 533. Accordingly, the court dismisses Defendants' CPA claim concerning Cornhusker's alleged violation of WAC 284-30-330(2). Hi. Compelling a first party claimant to initiate or submit to litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such action This claim fails in light of the court's foregoing rulings. Because Defendants have failed to create a genuine dispute with respect to coverage, see supra Part III.B.l.b., they cannot show that Corn-husker compelled SQI to submit to litigation by offering substantially less in settlement than the amount ultimately recovered on the Policy in this litigation. See WAC 284- 2JLR, 2013 WL 1562032, at *3 (W.D.Wash. Apr. 12, 2013) (<HOLDING>))); but see Seaway Props., LLC v. Fireman's
Holding statements: (A) holding that an unreasonably low settlement offer amounts to a denial of benefits under ifca (B) holding that the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue (C) holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits (D) holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits (E) holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits
holding that the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue