With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". alleged that she relinquished her accrued benefits with her previous employer in reliance upon Texas Children’s alleged misrepresentations. Id. at 153. Because her claim was not based solely on Texas Children’s denial of benefits, the court concluded that she could have a claim based on the benefits she lost as a result of being induced to leave her former employer. Id. at 154-55. This Court, in Keifer v. Spring Shadows Glen, followed Hook and reversed a summary judgment in favor of a non-subscriber employer and held that a common law negligence suit against an employer does not “relate to” the employer’s ERISA plan. 934 S.W.2d 785, 787-88 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied); see also Mem’l Hosp. Sys. v. Northbrook Life Ins. Co., 904 F.2d 236, 243-50 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); Perkins v. Time Ins. Co., 898 F.2d 470, 473

A: holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan
B: holding that state law causes of action arising from improper processing of a claim for benefits are preempted
C: holding that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan are removable to federal court
D: holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits
D.