this statutory claim falls under ERISA’s saving clause but provided no authority for this position. Contrary to Productive MD’s unsupported position, at least one district court in this circuit has held that ERISA’s saving clause does not save TenmCode § 56-7-105 from preemption under ERISA, because the state statute does not affect the spreading of policyholder risk and does not constitute an integral part of the insured-insurer relationship. Id. at 178 (collecting cases from other jurisdictions reaching similar conclusion). The Sixth Circuit has also found that ERISA preempted an Ohio bad faith insurance denial statute. See Schachner v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ohio, 77 F.3d 889, 896-97 (6th Cir.1996); see also In re Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 857 F.2d 1190, 1194-95 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of any cited authority to the
holding the state law claims were not preempted 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 holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan holding that erisa preempted claims under missouri vexatious refusal to pay statute holding that erisa preempted state law claim brought by employer against insurance company for wrongful claims processing