would be a less expensive alternative. The cost of that choice is exposure to lawsuits such as Woods's, which have a legal and factual basis independent of any ERISA plan. Such suits are not preempted merely because they seek damages that might also be available in the form of plan benefits. 4 . See Holloway v. Avalon Residential Care Homes, Inc., 107 Fed.Appx. 398, 400-01 (5th Cir.2004). 5 . Texas Aggregates’ only argument against the application of Hook is that it is no longer good law or should be overturned. Hook remains good law, however, and this panel lacks the authority to overturn a prior panel decision absent an intervening decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court or this court enbanc. See Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir.1997). 6 . Arana, 338 F.3d at 439-40 (<HOLDING>). 7 . See Rokohl v. Texaco, Inc., 77 F.3d 126,
holding that in light of the presumption against preemption there is no field preemption of state unfair competition claims that rely on a substantial question of federal patent law because congress has not expressed its clear and manifest intention to preempt that area of law holding that  502a operated to preempt state law claims despite the fact that the law in question may have been exempt from  514a preemption as a law regulating insurance holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance holding that  502a may serve as an independent basis for preemption where  514a the blanket erisa preemption provision is inapplicable holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law