between insurers and insureds”). Like the “notice-prejudice” rule (which' states that an insurer will not be relieved of liability based on an insured’s untimely notice of a claim unless the insurer demonstrates that it has been prejudiced as a result of the late notice, see Standard Oil Co. of California v. Hawaiian Ins. & Guar. Co., Ltd., 65 Haw. 521, 526 n. 4, 654 P.2d 1345, 1348 n. 4 (1982)), the external review law “dictates to the insurance company the conditions under which it must pay for the risk that it has assumed. This certainly qualifies as a substantial effect on the risk pooling arrangement between the insurer and insured.” Miller, 538 U.S. at 339 n. 3, 123 S.Ct. 1471 (citing UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358, 368, 119 S.Ct. 1380, 143 L.Ed.2d 462 (1999) (<HOLDING>)). If an insurer denies coverage for a
holding that even a state law  regulating insurance will be preempted if it provides a separate vehicle to assert a claim for benefits outside of or in addition to erisas remedial scheme holding that californias noticeprejudice rule regulated insurance for the purposes of erisas saving clause 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 holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim holding  502 overpowers erisas savings clause