In Parsons v. MetLife, (5th Circuit 2014) the court found that death by cardiac arrest was not shown to be solely caused by failure to appreciate the effect of heat and humidity while working outside in August in Alabama. We can vouch for the difficult conditions that time of year. The court stated “Alabama’s heat is neither sudden nor unexpected, so it was not an accident.” The court supported this further stating that the appellant did not provide the administrator with any evidence indicating that the cardiac arrest was caused directly or exclusively by the heat. There were other conditions that could have caused cardiac arrest such as hypertension and obesity. The medical examiner had only noted that “possibly heat was a contributing factor”. Parsons had worked outside for a few hours and was found in his truck unresponsive in extremely hot and humid weather. Accordingly, knowing precisely how he died and why was critical here. Mr. Parsons’ widow was not given the benefit of the doubt by MetLife and both the lower court and the court of appeals affirmed MetLife’s refusal to pay this widow for her benefit claim. Such policies appear to be illusory when they require proof of “sole cause” of death. There are no perfect human beings so won’t there always be something that always plays a role? This case did not present the right facts perhaps but surely there will be limits at some point.