With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. at 47-48, 107 S.Ct. 1549 (finding that the plaintiffs claims, each based on alleged improper processing of a claim for benefits under a qualified ERISA plan, “undoubtedly” met the criteria for preemption under § 514(a), despite the fact the state laws at issue did not expressly reference ERISA plans); Kuhl, 999 F.2d at 302 (having no difficulty concluding the plaintiffs’ claims, all arising from the administration of benefits under a qualified ERISA plan were preempted by ERISA); see also Parkman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 439 F.3d 767, 771-72 (8th Cir.2006) (“ERISA preempts ‘state common law tort and contract actions asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits’ under an ERISA plan.”) (quoting Pilot Life Ins. Co.); Fink v. Dakotacare, 324 F.3d 685, 689 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. Coventry Health Care, of Iowa,

A: holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits
B: holding that erisa preempted state law claim brought by employer against insurance company for wrongful claims processing
C: holding that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan are removable to federal court
D: holding that state law causes of action arising from improper processing of a claim for benefits are preempted
D.