met because the plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals and alleges that common questions of law and fact exist with respect to all members of the proposed class. b. State Law The complaint asserts claims under, the New York common law for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and the New York Consumer Protection from Deceptive-Acts and Practices Act. As such, the second element is satisfied because the complaint purports to be based on state law. c.A “Covered Security” A “covered secur at variable life insurance policies are “covered securities” under SLUSA. See In re Lutheran Brotherhood Variable Ins. Products Co. Sales Practices Litig., 105 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1040-41 (D.Minn.2000) (<HOLDING>); Lasley v. New England Variable Life Ins. Co.,
holding that variable insurance policies are covered securities under slusa holding that variable annuities are covered securities under slusa because they are securities and the subaccounts are registered with the sec under the investment company act holding that badfaith claims under  8371 arise under insurance policies holding that slusa precludes statelaw class action claims against these banks because the claims are predicated on the banks involvement with the fraudulent securities transactions of bernard l madoff investment securities madoff securities holding that thirdparty claimants are intended beneficiaries under optional automobile liability insurance policies