(2) provided false information and advertising; (3) made misrepresentations regarding the benefits, advantages, or dividends of a policy; (4) made a misrepresentation that induced a policy holder to allow an existing policy to lapse or to forego insurance; (5) mad preemption inquiry is the same as with any other state-law claim: A court must ask whether the cause of action addresses an area of exclusive federal concern and whether it directly affects the relationship between the traditional ERISA entities. Accordingly, courts have held that claims under the Texas Insurance Code are not preempted where the claim is not premised on the right to recover benefits under the terms of an ERISA plan. See, e.g., Transitional Hospitals Corp. v. Blue Cross, 164 F.3d 952, 955 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons given above — namely, that
holding that erisa did not preempt hospitals claims against erisa plan administrator for misrepresentation under texas insurance code because hospitals claims were not dependent on or derived from the beneficiarys right to recover benefits under the plan holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a fmvss holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan holding plaintiffs statelaw claims alleging common law misrepresentation and statutory misrepresentation under the texas insurance code art 2121 not preempted because they were not dependent on  the right to recover benefits under the erisa plan 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