With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contributory negligence. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8308-3.03—.04 (West Supp.1993). If Beverly had opted to obtain a workers’ compensation insurance policy, it is clear ERISA would not preempt Pyle’s state law claims against Beverly. See Gibbs v. Service Lloyds Ins. Co., 711 F.Supp. 874, 877-79 (E.D.Tex.1989). Beverly did not purchase such a policy; it elected instead not to participate in the workers’ compensation system and adopted its own self-funded plan. Because Texas law does not require that Beverly establish such a plan, it did not do so “solely for the purpose of complying with” the TWCA. See Diaz v. Texas Health Enters., Inc., 822 F.Supp. 1258, 1259 (W.D.Tex.1993) (finding nonsubscribing employer’s employee injury benefit plan was an ERISA plan); Eurine, 1991 WL 207468 at *2 (<HOLDING>); Nunez v. Wyatt Cafeterias, Inc. 771 F.Supp.

A: holding that state law relates to an employee benefit plan and is therefore preempted by erisa if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan
B: holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant
C: holding negligence action against nonsubscribing employer did not arise under1 twca and assuming employers employee injury benefit plan was erisa plan
D: holding that the employer intended to create a new employee welfare benefit plan
C.