was “highly likely” to occur. (Dissenting Op. at 340, 341) But the record does not support either contention. First, with regard to the motorcycle argument, the statistics cited by the dissent show at most an increased likelihood of death or injury during a motorcycle crash, not an increased likelihood of a crash as an initial matter. (Dissenting Op. at 343-44) But the latter, not the former, is the relevant event in the instant case. Moreover, in making its coverage decision, Zurich did not rely on the fact that Mr. Kovach was on a motorcycle when the accident occurred, so whether a motorcycle is a particularly dangerous form of transportation is irrelevant to our analysis. See Shelby County Health Care Corp. v. Majestic Star Casino, LLC, 581 F.3d 355, 368-69 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Second, the dissent infers that Vicodin, an
holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage holding that an argument not made to the circuit court cannot be raised on appeal holding an allegation sufficient under rule 9b that the plan and the participants acting on behalf of the plan relied upon and are presumed to have relied upon defendants representations and nondisclosures to their detriment holding that a labor union was a functional fiduciary to a plan under subsection iii due to its position as plan administrator and its authority to decide whether participants could appeal adverse decisions on their claims holding that a plan administrator cannot support its argument on appeal with a fact not relied upon in its initial coverage determination