about whether a fiduciary’s silence, rather than active concealment, can constitute a misrepresentation. See Krawczyk v. Harnischfeger Corp., 869 F.Supp. 613, 628 (E.D.Wis.1995) aff'd 41 F.3d 276 (7th Cir.1994). In this case, however, Adams not only received an enrollment form but was sent a statement confirming her enrollment, received benefits under the Tetra Flex plan for which she was supposedly ineligible and paid premiums to the same for a period of at least four or five months. A recent case in this jurisdiction has determined that facts similar to these are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss premised on defendants’ lack of misrepresentation. See The Estate of Cencula v. John Alden Life Insurance Company, 1998 WL 719937, *4 (N.D.Ill., October 6, 1998) (Slip Opinion) (<HOLDING>). The Cencula court acknowledged that, in
holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding administrative program shown where employer endorsed plan in company booklet referring to it as our plan employed fulltime plan administrator collected payments from employees and remitted payments to insurer holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that erisa employee benefits plan was subrogated to all claims by covered individual against third party for all payments made by the plan holding that a finding of estoppel by conduct under erisa might be appropriate where the insured received a letter welcoming her to the plan received more than seventynine payments under plan for 60000 in medical bills and paid plan premium payments for a tenmonth period before being notified of ineligibility due to preexisting condition