a state-law breach-of-contract claim for NCB’s failure to perform its non-fiduciary duties under the plan. PONI correctly contends that an entity may serve both in a fiduciary and non-fiduciary capacity, because fiduciary status under ERISA turns on function rather than form. Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 225-26, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000). Indeed, where the alleged conduct by the fiduciary is “entirely unrelated to and outside the scope of [the fiduciary’s] duties under the plan or in carrying out the terms of the plan,” courts have found that ERISA’s core objectives are not implicated and state-law claims may proceed. Darcangelo v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 292 F.3d 181, 193 (4th Cir.2002); see also Dishman v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 269 F.3d 974, 984 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, because the contract
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 an erisa violation accrued each time faulty investment contracts were renewed because erisa fiduciaries had a continuing duty to review plan investments holding that where a governmental entity purchases a benefit plan on behalf of government employees and dele gates the administration to a private insurer the plan is a government plan exempt from erisa holding that erisa does not provide fiduciaries with blanket immunity from garden variety torts which only peripherally impact daily plan administration holding that directors and officers are fiduciaries