Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 1102(b)(4)). 45 . Id. (citing ERISA § 3(8), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8)). 46 . Id.; Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9, 107 S.Ct. 2211, 96 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987). 47 . Egelhoff, 532 U.S. at 148-50, 121 S.Ct. 1322. 48 . Id. at 147, 121 S.Ct. 1322 (citing ERISA § 3(8), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(8)). 49 . Fort Halifax Packing Co., 482 U.S. at 9, 107 S.Ct. 2211; see also Davila, 542 U.S. at 208, 124 S.Ct. 2488 ("The purpose of ERISA is to provide a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans.”); Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at 142-45, 111 S.Ct. 478; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 64-66, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). 50 . Egelhoff, 532 U.S. at 150, 121 S.Ct. 1322; see also Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355, 365, 122 S.Ct. 2151, 153 L.Ed.2d 375 (<HOLDING>). 51 . See La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 22:213(A)(14) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans (B) holding employee benefit plans that are insured are subject to indirect state insurance regulation (C) holding that a georgia garnishment statute that solely applied to erisa employee benefit plans was preempted (D) recognizing that it was beyond dispute that a state statute that required all insured benefit plans to submit to an extra layer of review for certain benefit denials had a substantial effect on erisa plans (E) holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans
Output (English): holding employee benefit plans that are insured are subject to indirect state insurance regulation