the promised coverage,” the court continued, “ ‘relates to’ that plan only indirectly.” Id.; see also Chidester v. Quoyeser, 41 F.3d 664, 1994 WL 685015 (5th Cir.1994) (noting that the court’s holding in Perkins “was based on our finding that the fraud did not affect the relations among the principal ERISA entities”) (alteration omitted); Morstein v. Nat’l Ins. Servs., Inc., 93 F.3d 715, 722 (11th Cir. 1996) (adopting “the rationale of the Fifth Circuit as stated in Perkins” and holding that a state-law claim brought against an insurance agent, which is not an ERISA entity, does not affect relations among principal ERISA entities and is not preempted by ERISA). By focusing on the fact that the insurance agent was not an ERISA entity, the Fifth C lan, 845 F.2d 1286, 1290 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Hansen v. Continental Ins. Co., 940 F.2d 971
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 holding that erisa preempted plaintiffs commonlaw causes of action including tortious breach of contract breach of fiduciary duties and fraud in the inducement that arose from a denial of benefits under the insurance contract holding hospitals statelaw claims for breach of fiduciary duty negligence equitable estoppel breach of contract and fraud were preempted by erisa where the hospital sought to recover benefits owed to a plan participant who had assigned her right to plan benefits to the hospital holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan 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