Opinion ID: 349214
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The New Hampshire Act.

Text: 14 In resolving the preemption issue, it is first necessary to determine the scope of the New Hampshire statute. Chapter 57 applies to each insurer that issues or renews any policy of group or blanket accident or health insurance and certificate holders of such insurance. The issue is whether employee welfare funds are insurers under the statute. In the event they are, we would have no difficulty finding explicit preemption by ERISA notwithstanding the saving clause. 34 15 In determining the scope of Chapter 57 we are without the aid of a definitive New Hampshire state court interpretation. The state attorney general, without conceding its direct non-applicability to employee benefit plans, indicates that Chapter 57 is not a disclosure law, and it does not purport to regulate benefit plans. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, assert that they are not self-insurers, despite the fact that their insurance premiums are experience rated. Without further clarification we find that Chapter 57 was codified as an insurance law and specifically relates to insurers who issue certificates of insurance. Under a group insurance policy, a plan, as such, is really the insured and it does not issue certificates of insurance to its members. Under these circumstances we find there is no intention under Chapter 57 to directly regulate employee welfare plans as insurers. 16 This resolution, however, does not end our analysis. Plaintiffs further contend that Chapter 57 impermissibly regulates employee benefit plans by indirectly regulating the content of the group insurance policies which the funds purchase, and that ERISA preempts any indirect state regulation of employee benefit plans. The State of New Hampshire responds that ERISA was not intended to preempt any state law unless that law directly conflicts with or duplicates the regulatory provisions of ERISA. 17