(1987); Donovan v. Dillingham, 688 F.2d 1367, 1371 (11th Cir.1982). The burden is on the party asserting ERISA preemption, here, the Company, to establish the existence of a plan which would invoke ERISA’s exclusive remedy provisions. Terry v. Protective Life Insurance Co., 717 F.Supp. 1203, 1205 (S.D.Miss.1989); Peters v. Boulder Insurance Agency, Inc., 829 P.2d 429, 432 (Colo.App.1991), cert. denied (April 20, 1992). Plaintiffs dispute the Company’s assertion that their Policy fulfills all the elements of an ERISA plan. A. The “Plan, Fund, or Program” Requirement A “plan, fund or program” (“a plan”) under ERISA is established if “ ‘from the surrounding circumstances a reasonable person can ascertain the intended benefits, the class of beneficiaries, the source 71, 974 (5th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); cf. Coyne, 482 U.S. at 11, 107 S.Ct. at 2217
holding that because no plan document granted discretion to the plan administrator and because the fiduciaries had not expressly delegated their discretionary authority to the plan administrator the district court properly employed the de novo standard of review 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 plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions holding that the employer created an erisa plan when it 1 paid for the employees insurance 2 contracted with the insurance company for coverage and eligibility requirements and 3 collected and remitted the employees dependents premiums