Concluding that workers compensation premiums do not constitute unpaid contributions to an “employee benefit plan” under Section 507(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court rejected an argument that the definition of “welfare benefit plan” should be borrowed from the general definition used in ERISA. Noting that ERISA specifically exempts application to workers’ compensation plans, the Court based its decision on the general nature of workers’ compensation, reasoning that “statutorily prescribed workers’ compensation regimes do not run exclusively to the employees’ benefit. In this regard, they differ from privately ordered, employer-funded pension and welfare plans that, together with wages, remunerate employees for services rendered. Employers, too, gain from workers’ compensation prescriptions. In exchange for no-fault liability, employers gain immunity from tort actions that might yield damages many times higher than awards payable under workers’ compensation schedules. Although the question is close, we conclude that premiums paid for workers’ compensation insurance are more appropriately bracketed with premiums paid for other liability insurance, e.g., motor vehicle, fire, or theft insurance, than with contributions made to secure employee retirement, health, and disability benefits.” Howard Delivery Service v. Zurich American Ins. Co., 126 S.Ct. 2105 (2006).