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.

Q: contract claims under general liability policies. See Keystone Filler & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. American Mining Ins. Co., 179 F.Supp.2d 432 (M.D.Pa.2002); Redevelopment Auth. of Cambria County v. Int'l Ins. Co., 454 Pa.Super. 374, 685 A.2d 581 (1996) (en banc); see also Augenblick v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 99-3419, 1999 WL 975118 (E.D.Pa. Oct.8, 1999). General liability policies provide the insured coverage for personal injury or property damage resulting from an "occurrence," and are intended "to protect the insured from liability fo e in Redevelopment Authority that there is no 'occurrence' if the underlying claim is one merely for breach-of-contract has been followed by numerous state and federal courts sitting in Pennsylvania.") (citing cases); Augenblick, 1999 WL 975118, at *2, 5 (<HOLDING>). In contrast to those cases, U.S. Specialty's
Holding statements: (A) holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer (B) holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract (C) holding that insureds breach of contract suit against insurer raised a coverage issue which was not settled by insurers payment of only part of what insured was claiming in breach of contract action (D) holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract (E) holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident

A: holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer
****
Q: 42-217. If, based on the proof submitted by the applicant and the field examination, the Department "is satisfied that the law has been fully complied with and that the water is being used at the place claimed and for the purpose for which it was originally intended, the [Department shall issue to such user or users a license confirming such use." I.C. 42-219(1). On the other hand, "[i]n the event that the [Department shall find that the applicant has not fully complied with the law and the conditions of permit, it may issue a license f ls Ground Water Dist., 141 Idaho 746, 753, 118 P.3d 78, 85 (2005) (finding that "a party is not entitled to vested rights in a water right by virtue of filing a permit application"); Hardy v. Higginson, 123 Idaho 485, 491, 849 P.2d 946, 952 (1993) (<HOLDING>). However, this Court has never considered the
Holding statements: (A) holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate (B) holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use (C) holding that the legislative assembly intended the water right certificate not the permit even when followed by a beneficial use to mark the point at which a water right becomes vested (D) holding that permits only give the applicant an inchoate or contingent right to put the water to a beneficial use (E) holding that a water right is a property right created by a person appropriating unappropriated water and applying it to a beneficial use

A: holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate
****
Q: ego). We believe, however, that Carr is the better reasoned case and the path that the California Supreme Court would follow. See Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 n. 3 (9th Cir.1994). FERGUSON, Circuit Judge, concurring: When an appellate court has alternative bases for its holding, it cannot be claimed that all but one of the bases is unnecessary dicta. Part III of the Court's opinion here is not irrelevant to our disposition of the matter, as the special concurrence claims; rather, it is an alternative holding providing one of two independent bases for supporting our disposition. Cf. United States Steel Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 444 U.S. 1035, 1038, 100 S.Ct. 710, 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (<HOLDING>). O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, specially
Holding statements: (A) holding that references to reading stipulations in muse are dicta (B) recognizing in dicta power to substantively consolidate entities but noting that power to be used sparingly (C) recognizing such limitations in dicta (D) holding that everything after denial of jurisdiction is dicta pure and simple (E) recognizing that alternative holdings are not dicta

A:
holding that references to reading stipulations in muse are dicta
****