in the contract related to judicial scrutiny of a claim denial. Section 10-3-1116(3) eliminates Defendants’ option to minimize scrutiny of benefit denials, and eliminates Defendants’ autonomy to guarantee terms congenial to its own interests. Colorado insureds may no longer agree to a discretionary clause in the absence of de novo judicial review and the right to a jury trial in exchange for a more affordable premium. By requiring de novo judicial review, and thereby removing the benefit of a deferential standard of review from insurers, such litigation may lead to a greater number of claims being paid, thus increasing the benefit of risk pooling for consumers. See Standard Ins., 584 F.3d at 845; see also McClenahan v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 621 F.Supp.2d 1135, 1140-42 (D.Colo.2009) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted), aff'd, 416 Fed.Appx. 693,
holding that erisa does not preempt section 22213b7 holding that erisa does not preempt revstatmo  51343010e because it is entirely consistent with both erisa and the bankruptcy code holding that erisa does not expressly preempt colo rev stat  10311162 as enforcement of the statute would dictate to the insurance company the conditions under which it must pay for the risk that it has assumed holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims