Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): reach Plaintiffs and did reach Plaintiffs explaining that additional life insurance was available at $4.95 per $15,000 in coverage.” (Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that Walker did not exercise reasonable care or competence when he made these statements and that Plaintiff and Mr. Kersh “reasonably relied on these representations to their detriment....” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that if she and Mr. Kersh had been informed that they could not purchase $750,000 in life insurance from UHC, “they would have purchased the same through another company.” (Id.) For the reasons given in the preceding section, this state-law claim, which is brought against non-ERISA entities and does not seek benefits under an ERISA plan, is not subject to conflict preemption. See Access Mediquip, 662 F.3d at 385 (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Zoellner, 114 F.3d 713 (8th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that insureds declaratory judgment class action claims seeking to retain tort settlements following their insurers claims for reimbursement were claims to enforce their rights under the terms of the plan and to clarify their rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan under erisa (B) holding that erisa did not preempt hospitals claims against erisa plan administrator for misrepresentation under texas insurance code because hospitals claims were not dependent on or derived from the beneficiarys right to recover benefits under the plan (C) holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant (D) holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits (E) holding that third partys suit against plan administrator for misrepresentation was not related to erisa plan because the finder of fact need only determine 1 the amount and terms of reimbursement that plaintiff could reasonably have expected given what could fairly be inferred from defendants statements and 2 whether defendants subsequent disposition of the reimbursement claims was consistent with that expectation
Output (English): holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits