to opine on Executive Life’s financial condition or to predict Executive Life’s eventual demise. See id. at 135 (citations omitted) (“[W]e hasten to add that ERISA does not impose a ‘duty of clairvoyance’ on fiduciaries.”). Turning our attention to the record, we find a number of triable issues. Clearly there is evidence of several communications made by Unisys to plan participants on an individual, group or systematic basis regarding the nature of and risks associated with investments in the Fixed Income and Insurance Contract Funds and Executive Life’s downturn. Whether the communications constituted misrepresentations and whether they were material under the principles we have articulated are questions of fact that are properly left for trial. Id. at 135. See Curdo, 33 F.3d at 236 (<HOLDING>). At this point, we observe that what was
holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where precontract misrepresentations were directly related to alleged breach of contract holding that misleading summary plan description coupled with misrepresentations in an audiotape and a pamphlet supported a claim for breach of fiduciary duty holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations