United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 11, 2003 For the Fifth Circuit Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 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 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 * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 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