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.

[EX 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
[EX 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

[EX Q]: face," id. at 61, 90 S.Ct. 1555, it held that the exception for any portrayal that "does not tend to discredit [the] armed force[s]" impermissibly restricted expression on the basis of viewpoint. See id. at 62-63, 90 S.Ct. 1555. Here, as in Schacht, defendants may be constitutionally permitted to prohibit all fraternal organizations from marching in uniform. But it does not follow from this premise that defendants have the seemingly lesser included authority to ban only some organizations from marching in uniform. Under Schacht, and under other Supreme Court cases involving selective prohibitions on expression, defendants' selectivity must itself pass constitutional muster. Cf. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 425-28, 113 S.Ct. 1505, 123 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 465, 100 S.Ct.
Holding statements: (A) holding that cincinnati could not ban commercial newsracks from public property while allowing noncommercial newsracks even if the city might entirely prohibit the use of newsracks on public property (B) holding ban on newsracks to be contentbased because determining whether a newsrack fell within ban required reference to a publications content (C) holding lease of property was a commercial transaction where the property was for commercial ranching but a residence was maintained on the property (D) holding that a public school did not create a public forum by allowing commercial advertising on a baseball field fence (E) holding not only does cincinnatis categorical ban on commercial newsracks place too much importance on the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech but in this case the distinction bears no relationship whatsoever to the particular interests that the city has asserted
[EX A]: holding ban on newsracks to be contentbased because determining whether a newsrack fell within ban required reference to a publications content

[EX Q]: under the public-policy exception involved employees terminated for refusing to engage in unlawful or unethical conduct. In contrast to the employees in Lorenz and Mariani, Weissman here alleges that she was terminated for exercising a job-related right, not for refusing to engage in unlawful or unethical conduct. Specifically, Weissman alleges that she was discharged because she complained to the division that Crawford was attempting to eliminate her morning and evening rest breaks and because she continued to exercise those breaks. Although an employee terminated for exercising a job-related right may state a cognizable claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under certain circumstances, see, e.g., Lathrop v. Entenmann's, Inc., 770 P.2d 1367, 1372 (Colo.App.1989) (<HOLDING>), we conclude that such circumstances do not
Holding statements: (A) holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits (B) recognizing wrongful discharge claim where employer allegedly discharged employee for exercising right to receive workers compensation benefits (C) holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act (D) recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge (E) holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim
[EX A]:
holding public policy prohibited employer from discharging employee in retaliation for seeking workers compensation benefits