With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As the Court summarized: ‘Congress’ intent to make the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism exclusive would be undermined if state causes of action that supplement the ERISA § 502(a) remedies were permitted, even if the elements of the state cause of action did not precisely duplicate the elements of an ERISA claim.’ Id. at 2499-2500; see also Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 54, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987) (noting that the ‘policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA.’); Elliot v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Dishman v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 269 F.3d 974,

A: holding claims under the montana unfair trade practices statute were conflictpreempted because the montana law provided nonerisa damages for essentially claim processing causes of action
B: 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
C: holding the conflict preemption principle announced in pilot life and clarified in rush prudential remains in force
D: holding that an action which seeks nonerisa damages for what are essentially claim processing causes of actionf clearly falls under the  1132 preemption exemplified by pilot life
D.