You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

practice and protocol. We do not question that Amanda's proof is sufficient for a negligence claim against Nissan. Our review, however, extends to the enhanced culpability required for punitive damages. Proving Gross Negligence Successful completion of regulatory product testing weighs against a finding of gross negligence.' Accordingly, exceeding mandatory requirements by successfully completing more rigorous testing strongly weighs against such a finding. The logic is clear. Meeting and then exceeding base safety requirements is, at the- very least, facial evidence of exercising slight care. Federal courts applying Kentucky law have correctly- observed this standard. E.g,, Cameron v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. Civ.A.5:04-CV-24, 2005 WL 2674990, at *9 (E.D.Ky. Oct. 20, 2005) (<HOLDING>). This approach has also been adopted by
Holding statements: (A) holding that the undisputed fact that manufacturer complied with federal safety standards weighed against punitive damages (B) holding that a reduction in punitive damages to comply with the due process clause is a federal constitutional issue not a fact issue requiring jury consideration (C) holding that indemnification by excess liability insurer for punitive damages imposed on drug manufacturer contrary to public policy (D) holding a court may not award punitive damages (E) holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law must yield to federal limitations
Output:
holding that a reduction in punitive damages to comply with the due process clause is a federal constitutional issue not a fact issue requiring jury consideration