plans or require investigation into the terms of their plans; rather, they derive from N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-335. The district court also stated that section 5-335 could not be the basis of an independent legal duty because it does not apply “where there is a statutory right of reimbursement,” N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-335(a), and plaintiffs’ plans contain a right of reimbursement that “is enforced by means of ERISA.” Wurtz, 933 F.Supp.2d at 499-500. However, “ERISA says nothing about subrogation provisions. ERISA neither requires a welfare plan to contain a subrogation clause nor does it bar such clauses or otherwise regulate their content.” Member Servs. Life Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa, 130 F.3d 950, 958 (10th Cir.1997) ( F.3d 278, 291-92 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>) ; see also Levine v. United Healthcare Corp.,
holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted holding that a claim under a louisiana antisubrogation statute could be characterized as a claim under erisa  502a1b because the plaintiffs benefits are under something of a cloud for the insurer is asserting a right to be reimbursed for the benefits it has paid to his account holding that plaintiffs statelaw claim was completely preempted under federal statute even though relief soughtan injunctionwas not available under the federal statute 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 a claim under a maryland antisubrogation statute to be completely preempted