Source: https://www.lowandcanata.com/new-blog/2018/10/31/fmc-corporation-v-holliday-498-us-52-1990
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:56:53+00:00

Document:
FMC Corporation v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 (1990).
The issue before the Court was whether a state law precluding subrogation (reimbursement) of health care benefits paid by health insurers of ERISA health benefit plans out of third party settlements applied to a self-insured plan. The Court held that ERISA pre-empted the application of the state law as applied to the self insured plan.
The daughter of an employee who was the member of a health care plan provided and paid for by his employer (self-funded, not insured by an insurance company) and was injured in an auto accident. The self funded plan paid health care benefits. The employee settled an auto accident claim on behalf of his daughter. While that suit was pending the self-funded plan sought declaratory judgment in federal court that it was entitled to reimbursement through its subrogation rights in the plan despite the state law outlawing such subrogation rights.
"Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section [the saving clause], the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan." § 514(a), as set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (preemption clause).
"Except as provided in subparagraph (B) [the deemer clause], nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities."§ 514(b)(2)(A), as set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A) (saving clause).
"Neither an employee benefit plan . . . nor any trust established under such a plan, shall be deemed to be an insurance company or other insurer, bank, trust company, or investment company or to be engaged in the business of insurance or banking for purposes of any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies, insurance contracts, banks, trust companies, or investment companies." § 514(b)(2)(B), as set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(B) (deemer clause).
Newer PostAdvocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 137 S.Ct. 1652 (2017).

References: v. 
 § 514
 § 1144
 § 1144
 § 514
 § 1144
 v.