us in the investigation, settlement, and defense of any claim or lawsuit. Failure to cooperate with us may result in the denial of the claim.” The letter contains two conclusory statements that the plaintiff provided false information during the presentation of the claim and also states that she breached the cooperation clause of the policy. But all of the facts recited in the letter relate only to the provision of allegedly false information on the topic of where plaintiff was previously licensed. Compare Jertson v. Hartley, 342 Mass. 597, 601-602 (1961) (detailing false information that insurance company pointed to as evidence of noncooperation as provided in connection with claim); Employers’ Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Vella, 366 Mass. 651, 654-655 (1975), quoting from Jertson, supra (<HOLDING>); Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. 350, 364
holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract recognizing that intentional furnishing of false information of a material nature is breach of cooperation clause and discussing misrepresentations provided during investigation and trial of claim holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where precontract misrepresentations were directly related to alleged breach of contract holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff