With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Hook’s unsafe workplace claim was “totally independent from the existence and administration of’ the ERISA plan. 38 F.3d at 784. The claim for negligent misrepresentation was not preempted “because it neither sought benefits under the plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits.” Id. A few months after the decision in Hook, the court again held that an employee’s common law occupational injury claim did not relate to an employer’s ERISA plan. Tex. Health Enters., Inc. v. Reece, 44 F.3d 243, 245 (5th Cir.1994). In Smith v. Texas Children’s Hospital, the court held that preemption did not apply to a plaintiffs fraudulent inducement claim because the claim was not necessarily dependent upon the plaintiffs rights under the ERISA plan. 84 F.3d 152, 155 (5th Cir.1996). The h Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Nunez v. Wyatt Cafeterias, Inc., 771 F.Supp.

A: holding claim that insurance agent fraudulently induced insured to surrender coverage under existing policy to participate in erisa plan which did not provide promised coverage related to that plan only indirectly
B: holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed
C: holding that a legal malpractice insurance policy that limited coverage to suits seeking damages and defined damages as excluding sanctions did not provide coverage for a sanctions motion against the insured
D: holding that the plaintiffs asserted legal basis for coverage is irrelevant to the determination of whether the insurance policy provides coverage and instead looking to the facts underlying the claim for coverage
A.