Geske, et al v. Williamson

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 11, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 03-60162
ESTATE OF JERALD J. GESKE, Virginia Geske Administratrix;
VIRGINIA GESKE
Plaintiffs - Appellants
VERSUS
DANNY R. WILLIAMSON; ET AL
Defendants
UNITED HEALTHCARE OF MISSISSIPPI, INC.;
Defendant - Appellee
CANAL INDEMNITY COMPANY
Plaintiff
VERSUS
VIRGINIA GESKE, ETC.; ET AL
Defendants
VIRGINIA GESKE, Individually as and as Administratrix of Estate of
Jerald Geske, Deceased; UNITED HEALTHCARE OF MISSISSIPPI, INC.;
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg
2:01-CV-324

-- 1 of 3 --

*District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by
designation.
**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges, and LITTLE*,
District Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
The survivors of Jerald J. Geske prosecute this appeal of an
interlocutory order certified by the district court and challenge
the district court’s dismissal of his action against United
Healthcare(United) for fraudulent misrepresentations under
Mississippi law. The district court dismissed the state law claim
on grounds that it was preempted by ERISA. The district court also
held that the Geskes’ state law claim against United’s agent,
Williamson, was not preempted and that the Geskes had a valid ERISA
claim against United for medical benefits. The only issue before
us in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Geskes state law
claim against United for fraudulent misrepresentation is preempted
by ERISA.
After reviewing the record, reading the briefs of the parties,
and hearing argument of counsel we conclude that properly
characterized, the Geskes’ claim seeks damages for United’s failure
to pay medical benefits under the COBRA provisions of United’s
policy, which was a part of the ERISA plan of Mr. Geske’s former
employer, Barnes Trucking Co. Because this action asserts a claim

-- 2 of 3 --

3
for ERISA benefits and damages for failing to timely pay those
benefits, the district court correctly concluded that this action
is preempted by ERISA.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --