With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". . See 29 U.S.C.S. § 1144(b) (Law.Co-op 1990 & Supp.1995). 29 . See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A); see also Travelers, — U.S. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 1675. 30 . See, e.g., Travelers,- U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1677; Dist. of Columbia v. Greater Washington Bd of Trade, 506 U.S. 125, 113 S.Ct. 580, 121 L.Ed.2d 513 (1992); Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96-97, 103 S.Ct. at 2899-2900. 31 . See La Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40:2202(5)(c). 32 . See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40:2202(5)(a) (emphasis added). 33 . See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40:2202(3)(a). 34 . See id. (" ‘Group purchaser’ may include: ... Entities which contract for the benefit of their insured eemption by ERISA's insurance savings clause), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 579, 126 L.Ed.2d 478 (1993); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama v. Nielsen, 917 F.Supp. 1532 (1996) (<HOLDING>). 42 . A brief was filed in support of Ieyoub’s

A: holding that a thirdparty providers claim against insurer for promissory estoppel was not preempted by erisa because the thirdparty provider was not bound by the terms of the erisa plan
B: holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy
C: holding that a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by an independent third party health care provider was not preempted by erisa
D: holding that alabamas equivalent of the any willing provider statute is preempted by erisa
D.