Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In contrast to these laws which have been found to have a tenuous connection with employee benefit plans, the Supreme Court has found that common law breach of contract and tort claims against an insurance company based on the improper processing of benefits is preempted. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 47, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). The Eleventh Circuit has further explained that section 514(a) has been interpreted to preempt certain state common law causes of action “whenever the alleged conduct at issue is intertwined with the refusal to pay-benefits.” Garren v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 114 F.3d 186, 187 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam); see also Variety Children’s Hosp., Inc. v. Century Medical Health Plan, Inc., 57 F.3d 1040, 1042 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. Parisian, 807 F.2d 1560, 1564 (11th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims (B) holding that erisa preempts the texas dtpa because plaintiff relied on state law to advance his complaint that his benefits under the plan were terminated (C) holding erisa preempts state contract and tort actions based on improper processing of claims for benefits (D) holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans (E) holding that erisa preempts state law claims of fraud and misrepresentation that are based upon the failure of a covered plan to pay benefits
Output (English): holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans