court found — she was being monitored for the longstanding fibrocystic breast condition and not cancer during the pre-coverage period.”); Ross v. Western Fidelity Insurance Co., 881 F.2d 142, 144 (5th Cir.1989) (“[T]here is at least a reasonable argument that, under [a pre-existing condition exclusion], treatment for a specific condition cannot be received unless the specific condition is known.”); Van Volkenburg v. Continental Casualty Insurance Co., 971 F.Supp. 117, 122 (W.D.N.Y.1997) (finding reasonable the plaintiffs argument that to obtain advice or treatment regarding a medical “condition,” one must first have some awareness that the “condition” exists); see also In re Estate of Monica Ermenc v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 221 Wis.2d 478, 585 N.W.2d 679, 682 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Mannino v. Agway, Inc. Group Trust, 192
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 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 holding that contracts for an indefinite period are excluded from the statutes coverage holding that discovery of a breast lump before the defendants insurance coverage began triggered the preexisting condition exclusion although the lump was not definitively diagnosed as cancer until after coverage began holding that where the claimants cancer was not evident as a condition before the coverage period began and where the symptoms before diagnosis were nonspecific coverage should not be excluded under the preexisting condition clause