TASK 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.
PROBLEM: citizens of Alabama for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction analysis. This narrow and specialized statute provides in pertinent part: In any direct action against the insurer of a policy or contract of liability insurance, whether incorporated or unincorporated, to which action the insured is not joined as a party-defendant, such insurer shall be deemed a citizen of the State of which the insured is a citizen. Andalusia and Hughes, who are insureds but not parties defendant, contend that a realignment of Lane will make the case into a direct action by Lane against the insurers, and because it is one in which the insureds are not joined as parties defendant, diversity would be destroyed by 1332(a)(1). This contentio d.2d 73 (1974). But where the s 13 F.Supp. 367, 371 (D.Conn.1970) (<HOLDING>), rev'd on other grounds, 456 F.2d 282 (2d
Holding statements: (A) holding action by insured against his own insurer under uninsured motorist provisions of policy not a direct action within section 1332c proviso (B) holding that insured cannot bring an action against its insurer for bad faith failure to settle a claim in the absence of an excess verdict (C) holding action by judgment creditor of insured against insurer for bad faith failure to settle claim against insured not a direct action within section 1332c proviso (D) holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith (E) holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second

SOLUTION: holding action by insured against his own insurer under uninsured motorist provisions of policy not a direct action within section 1332c proviso

PROBLEM: negligence placed the plaintiff...." Brown v. Philadelphia Coll, of Osteopathic Med., 449 Pa.Super. 667, 674 A.2d 1130, 1135-36 (1996). Russell's actions were intentional, not negligent. The impact rule, which depends upon the negligence of a defendant, is therefore inapposite to this case. 7 . Because DiSalvio's federal cause of action survives Russell's Motion to Dismiss, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over DiSalvio's remaining state law claims. 9 . Unlike the School District Defendants, Russell has not argued that this tort is unavailable to plaintiffs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10 . The Court similarly rejects Russell's argument that DiSalvio cannot recover punitive damages from him under her 1983 claim. See Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491, 1497 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 11 . DiSalvio suggests that Magill should
Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda (B) holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee (C) holding that punitive damages may be awarded under 1983 when the defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others (D) holding that a supervisor with no personal involvement may be liable for the constitutional violation of a subordinate for culpable action or inaction in the training supervision or control of his subordinates acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation or reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others (E) holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed

SOLUTION: holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda

PROBLEM: of the facts or by mistake"; or it could mean that the court's earlier comments regarding deliberate misrepresentations did not apply to unintentional falsehoods and that the latter "would not avoid [a] policy." Whether or not Willis controls, we conclude that only wilful misrepresentations, made with knowledge of their falsity, can be the basis for voiding a policy under ORS 743.612. The statute provides that a policy will be void if the insured wilfully conceals or misrepresents material facts. The statute also provides for avoidance in the event of "fraud" and "false swearing." As pointed out in Transamerica v. Bloomfield, supra, however, ORS 743.612 does not incorporate all the elements of common law fraud. Cf. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. v. McBride, 295 Or 398, 667 P2d 494 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The objective of ORS 743.612 is to discourage
Holding statements: (A) holding that the presumption of validity and its concomitant clear and convincing evidence standard does not apply to section 101 claims the court reasoned because no evidence outside the pleadings is considered in deciding a motion to dismiss it makes little sense to apply a clear and convincing standard a burden of proof to such motions citation omitted (B) holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence (C) holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard (D) holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard (E) holding that the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof applicable in fraud actions does not apply to the proof of misrepresentations under ors 743612

SOLUTION:
holding that the presumption of validity and its concomitant clear and convincing evidence standard does not apply to section 101 claims the court reasoned because no evidence outside the pleadings is considered in deciding a motion to dismiss it makes little sense to apply a clear and convincing standard a burden of proof to such motions citation omitted