cancel an insurance policy. The statute meets all three criteria relevant to determining whether a law regulates the “business of insurance”: it can transfer the risk of non-coverage from an insured to the insurer; it is “an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured”; and it only applies to the insurance industry. Thus, the statute “regulate[s] insurance” and is not superseded by ERISA. See ERISA, § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1144(b)(2)(A); Metropolitan IAfe Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. at 742-43, 105 S.Ct. at 2390-91 (1985) (noting that “regulation[s] regarding the substantive terms of insurance contracts fall[ ] squarely within the saving clause as laws ‘which regulate insurance’ ”); Soniat v. Travelers Ins. Co., 538 So.2d 210, 215 (La.1989) (<HOLDING>). D. Did Louisiana’s Statutory Law Prohibit
holding that erisa does not preempt revstatmo  51343010e because it is entirely consistent with both erisa and the bankruptcy code holding section 10 of faa is procedural and does not preempt state common law holding that erisa does not preempt section 22213b7 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