Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): under a claims-made policy, but rather was only a request for information and explanation); United Capital Ins. Co. v. New York Marine and General Ins. Co., No. 91-4862, 1992 WL 38343, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Feb.19, 1992) (concluding that a letter sent to plaintiff constituted a claim because the letter “specifies the nature of the injuries, alleges negligence on the part of the insured and makes a demand for monies in the form of reimbursement”); Insurance Corp. of America v. Dillon, Hardamon & Cohen, 725 F.Supp. 1461, 1469 (N.D.Ind.1988) (“The word claim requires a demand for money or property or some specific relief, accompanied by an allegation of negligence, malpractice, or some kind of wrongdoing.”); Bensalem Township v. Western World Ins. Co., 609 F.Supp. 1343, 1348-49 (E.D.Pa.1985) (<HOLDING>); Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Sukut Constr. Co., 136 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 (B) holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling (C) holding that neither a letter from the eeoc nor an attached charge of age discrimination qualified as a claim under a claimsmade policy because the documents failed to request money or other relief and only served to put the plaintiff on notice that a demand for relief may subsequently follow (D) holding that plaintiffs filing with the eeoc constituted a formal charge because the plaintiff attached a statement to the filed intake questionnaire that included a request for the agency to act (E) holding because the district court refused to grant plaintiff reinstatement or any other injunctive relief the damage award was neither incidental to nor intertwined with any other relief
Output (English): holding because the district court refused to grant plaintiff reinstatement or any other injunctive relief the damage award was neither incidental to nor intertwined with any other relief