13101-14914 (West 1997 & Supp.2002). 2 . 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 40101-40120 (West 1997 & Supp.2002). 3 . Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.46 (Vernon 2002). 4 . Although DM paid Dunbar a fee based on DM’s claim of $30,000 in value, DM later claimed that cash and other precious stones were included in the package, for a total value of $172,000. 5 . 49 U.S.C.A. § 14706(e)(1) (West 1997). 6 . We recognize that plurality opinions are not binding on us, however, we have cited the plurality opinions that we find persuasive. See Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex.1996); Conner v. Conti-Carriers and Terminals, Inc., 944 S.W.2d 405, 413 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). 7 . We are aware that many federal courts have held to the contrary. See Moffit, 6 F.3d at 305-07 (<HOLDING>); Gordon v. United Van Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d
holding that claims for misrepresentation fraud and texas dtpa violations brought pursuant to article 2121 of the texas insurance code were completely preempted by erisa even if the result left the plaintiff with no adequate remedy for fraud holding a claim of a violation of the texas dtpa is preempted by the carmack amendment holding texas exemption law was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause holding that erisa preempts the texas dtpa because plaintiff relied on state law to advance his complaint that his benefits under the plan were terminated holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied