a claim that a carrier misrepresented an insurance policy when the alleged misrepresentation occurs within the claims-settlement context. In re Crawford, 485 S.W.3d at 927. As the Supreme Court observed in Crawford, “[t]he Act’s comprehensive system for resolving workers’ compensation claims encompasses prohibitions against fraud and misrepresentations made within the claims-settlement context, and grants the Division authority to regulate and sanction any such conduct.” In re Crawford, 458 S.W.3d at 927. Plaintiffs’ claim that Texas Mutual misrepresented the policy as it pertains to its right of subrogation is barred by the Act because the claim is necessarily based on Texas Mutual’s investigation, handling, or settling of the benefit claims. See In re Crawford, 458 S.W.3d at 926-27 (<HOLDING>); Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d at 443-45 (holding that
holding that ruttiger precludes claims for breach of contract breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing insurance code and dtpa violations and negligence because all claims arise out of the carriers handling of the workers compensation claim holding that the dwc has exclusive jurisdiction over a claim for misrepresentation of an insurance policy when the misrepresentation occurs within the claimsettlement process also holding that the plaintiffs claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional dis tress arose out of the carriers investigation handling and settling of a workers compensation claim holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it arose out of the same conduct as a preempted contract claim holding that only malicious prosecution requires a favorable termination of the criminal proceedings and that claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process accrue on the date of arrest holding that claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the texas department of insurance because they concern the claims handling process