Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and is overruled. Accordingly, we: (1) reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding actual damages (other than funeral expenses) and punitive damages for tortious interference and order that claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; (2) reverse the judgment to the extent any remaining damages awarded for tortious interference were for funeral expenses and render judgment that Alice take nothing on that claim; and (3) affirm the remainder of the judgment. 1 . Because the seventh issue is largely disposi-tive of the appeal, we address it first. 2 . See 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1461 (West 1999 & Supp.2005). 3 . Cathey v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 805 S.W.2d 387, 390-91 (Tex.1991). 4 . See also Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 145, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Cathey, 805 S.W.2d at 391-92 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed (B) holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy (C) holding that an employees claim for wrongful discharge based on the employers desire to avoid contributing to or paying benefits under the employees pension fund is preempted by erisa even though the claims are asserted under tort theories not erisa and seek damages only in the form of lost wages mental anguish and punitive damages not benefits under the plan (D) holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan (E) holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate
Output (English): holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed