With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 1159 (beneficiary allegedly had obligation under plan that she sought to avoid). The instant case fits neither of these categories. The truth of the matter is that Transamerica seeks a federal forum to interpret its contract. It seeks to clarify its obligations as an insurer, not to uphold its ERISA obligations in the face of a competing, independent duty. Nor does the defendant, the beneficiary, have ERISA obligations that this suit seeks to have her fulfill. We are not the first court to draw a distinction between an insurer’s suit to interpret its policy and an action “to enforce” an ERISA term within the special authorization of section 502(a)(3)(B). See Northeast Dep’t ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund, 764 F.2d 147, 153-54 (3d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The statutory language preceding section

A: holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan
B: holding that an erisa insurers declaratory suit seeking a favorable interpretation of a standard policy clause against a party having no obligations under the plan was not an action to enforce the plan terms
C: holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant
D: holding that insureds declaratory judgment class action claims seeking to retain tort settlements following their insurers claims for reimbursement were claims to enforce their rights under the terms of the plan and to clarify their rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan under erisa
B.