Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): illness.... While the seizure may have been the cause of the crash, it was not the cause of Brad Kellogg’s death. The Plan does not contain an exclusion for losses due to accidents that were caused by physical illness, but rather excludes only losses caused by physical illness. Because there is no evidence that the seizure caused Brad Kellogg’s death, MetLife’s argument fails. The fact that the policy at issue here excludes losses that were caused or contributed to by physical illness does not change this analysis. A reasonable policyholder would understand this language to refer to causes contributing to the death, not to the accident. Id. at 832-33 (citations, footnote omitted); see also Fought v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 379 F.3d 997, 998-1000, 1009-10 (10th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Metro. Life 
 Holding statements: (A) holding on rehearing that exclusion for disabilities caused by a preexisting medical condition would not support denial of benefits caused by staph infection resulting from surgery for a preexisting condition (B) holding that treatment for symptoms of undiagnosed multiple sclerosis activated the preexisting condition exclusion and stating that there is no requirement that a diagnosis definite or otherwise of the preexisting condition must be made during the preexisting condition period (C) recognizing that medical condition of cook who contracted staph infection that was so severe that she was treated by induced coma and not expected to survive sufficed for extraordinary circumstances test (D) holding that the preexisting duty exception does not apply where the preexisting duty is a limited one and the alleged negligence is the failure to provide a level of assistance beyond that required by the preexisting duty (E) holding that receiving advice or treatment during the exclusionary period for a condition which proves to be the same condition the claimant seeks benefits for qualifies as a preexisting condition regardless of whether there was an accurate diagnosis
Output (English): holding that the preexisting duty exception does not apply where the preexisting duty is a limited one and the alleged negligence is the failure to provide a level of assistance beyond that required by the preexisting duty