(b). Plaintiff argues also that, “following the termination of ‘continuation [group health] coverage,’ [he] exercised his right to contract directly with the insurance company ... for a conversion policy____” (PL’s Br.Regard. ERISA at 4.) Like continuation coverage, the right to a COBRA conversion option is predicated upon the existence of an ERISA plan. Howard v. Gleason Corp., 901 F.2d 1154, 1157 (2d Cir.1990); see 29 U.S.C. § 1162(5). COBRA defines what conversion options must be offered by reference to the ERISA plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1162(5). Any claim that Defendant failed to offer proper conversion plan options is essentially a claim that Defendant violated Plaintiffs conversion rights; such a claim relates to the ERISA plan and is pre-empted by ERISA. Cf. Howard, 901 F.2d at 1156-59 (<HOLDING>). (e). This Court draws a distinction, however,
holding that statelaw fraudonthefda claim  was preempted by federal law based on uniquely federal nature of regulated relationship holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted holding statelaw claim based on alleged failure to give proper notice of right to convert is preempted by erisa holding that a wrongful discharge claim based on violation of a state public policy is not preempted because it is a nonnegotiable independent statelaw right holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted