be measured, in part, by the amount of benefits that would have been due under the plan was found to be an “incidental” relation not requiring preemption. Id. at 247. The Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in The Meadows v. Employers Health Insurance, 47 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1995). In that case, the court held that the state law claims of the plaintiff, a third party provider, did not “relate to” ERISA because neither the provider nor the plan participants had any ties to the ERISA plan at the time the alleged misrepresentation occurred. Id. (explaining that the plan participant had terminated his relationship with his employer prior to the misrepresentation). See also Transitional Hosps. Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., Inc., 164 F.3d 952, 954 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); In Home Health, Inc. v. Prudential Ins. Co.
holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by an independent third party health care provider was not preempted by erisa holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient holding that a provider of software and hardware was not an information provider and thus could not be charged with negligent misrepresentation holding that a thirdparty providers claim against insurer for promissory estoppel was not preempted by erisa because the thirdparty provider was not bound by the terms of the erisa plan