"The court well understands why Provident wants to place the ERISA fence around Rosen's state law claims. It would be well worth the effort if Provident could meet its burden of proving that ERISA affords Rosen his only remedy, that is, outside of RICO.... Although Provident asserts that the various policies were issued under the same risk number, ... Provident provides no reason to give significance to this common risk number while conceding that the policies were individually underwritten ... These [and other] facts are incompatible with Provident's characterization of the policies as part of an 'employee welfare benefit program' and instead strongly suggest that the policies were separate and individual disability policies outside the embrace of ERISA. The decisions to buy policies were voluntary, and the policies were not touted by the employer." [Rosen v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., No. 2:14-cv-0922-WM (N.D. Ala. Jan. 21, 2015).] Editor's note: the opinion's author is District Judge William M. Acker Jr., who has testified to Congress about his views on ERISA's application to disability claims.]