With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". approach and held that ERISA does not preempt state-law claims brought against non-fiduciary service providers in connection with professional services rendered to an ERISA plan. See, e.g., Gerosa v. Savasta & Co., 329 F.3d 317, 330 (2d Cir.2003) (concluding that ERISA does not preempt plan’s state-law claim against an actuary which resulted in severe underfunding of ERISA plan), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 967, 124 S.Ct. 435, 157 L.Ed.2d 312 (2003) and cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1074, 124 S.Ct. 929, 157 L.Ed.2d 744 (2003); Ariz. State Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Citibank, 125 F.3d 715, 724 (9th Cir.1997) (concluding that a plan could bring a state-law claim for breach of custodial agreement against a bank as non-fiduciary service provider); Coyne & Delany Co., 98 F.3d at 1466, 1472 (<HOLDING>); Airparts Co. v. Custom Benefit Servs., 28

A: holding that state malpractice claims against insurer for negligently failing to obtain replacement insurance plan was not preempted
B: holding the state law claims were not preempted
C: holding assignable to injured party insureds claim against insurer for negligently failing to claim contribution
D: holding that erisa preempted state law claim brought by employer against insurance company for wrongful claims processing
A.