With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court does not need to resolve this issue. 5. Complete preemption under § 502 In addition to “ordinary” preemption, ERISA provides for complete preemption under § 502(a). Section 502(a), by providing a civil enforcement cause of action, completely preempts any state cause of action seeking the same relief, regardless of how artfully pleaded. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 66, 107 S.Ct. 1542. This particular preemptive provision cuts a wide swath, which is evidenced by the fact that a state insurance provision, even if clearly falling within the scope of the insurance “savings clause,” can be preempted by ERISA § 502 if the state provision provides additional remedies to an ERISA plan participant who sues for a mishandled claim. See e.g. Davila, 542 U.S. at 216-217, 124 S.Ct. 2488 (<HOLDING>); Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355,

A: holding a tortious interference claim was preempted by erisa because it did not meet the legal standard announced by the supreme court in miller in order for it to regulate insurance within the meaning of erisas savings clause
B: holding that a claim under booker does not fit within the savings clause of 28 usc  2255
C: holding  502 overpowers erisas savings clause
D: holding texas exemption law was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause
C.