Definition: 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.
Input: circumvent the subrogation rights of the insurer, then those rights may reach any portion used to defeat the subrogation rights. See id. Though not at issue here, we are cognizant of the fact that claimants could try to circumvent the subrogation rights of the insurer in cases that are litigated without reaching a settlement. A claimant could fail to pursue the economic claims ardently, or not pursue these claims at all. Although courts cannot control a plaintiffs strategy in pursuing personal injury claims, they do have jurisdiction over trial verdicts. See Burns v. McGraw-Hill Broad. Co., 659 P.2d 1351, 1356 (Colo.1983) (court may scrutinize verdict and grant new trial if verdict is result of bias, prejudice or passion); Lehrer v. Lorenzen, 124 Colo. 17, 20, 233 P.2d 382, 384 (1951) (<HOLDING>). Upon request, a personal injury court may
Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court must compare and weigh the opposing evidence and it must set aside the verdict if it determines that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence (B) holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment (C) recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict (D) holding that the court may set aside agency action only in extremely limited circumstances (E) holding that the trial courts denial of a motion to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence is reviewable only for abuse of discretion
Output:
holding that a district court must compare and weigh the opposing evidence and it must set aside the verdict if it determines that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence