With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to dismiss all the causes of action.” Id. at 454. 2 . See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Adcock, 412 S.W.3d 492, 495 (Tex.2013) (explaining that "the Legislature devised a comprehensive workers’ compensation system, with specific benefits and procedures based on the public policy of the State of Texas. We concluded in Ruttiger that the Court should not alter the Act's comprehensive scheme, and we reaffirm that principle today.”). 3 . We likewise held that the claimant could not recover on his DTPA claim because that claim, "as pled and submitted to the jury[,] depended on the validity of his Insurance Code claim[s].” Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d at 446. 4 . See, e.g., Davis v. Am. Cos. Co. of Reading, Pa., No. 07-13-00190-CV, 2014 WL 2553379, at *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo June 4, 2014, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Hopper v. Argonaut Ins. Co., No.

A: 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
B: holding plaintiffs causes of action for breach of contract breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the arizona insurance code were preempted by erisa
C: holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing
D: holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations
A.