S.Ct. 2151 (internal citations omitted). Further, the Supreme Court in Rush Prudential held [w]hatever the standards for reviewing benefit denials may be, they cannot conflict with anything in the text of the statute, which we have read to require a uniform judicial regime of categories of relief and standards of primary conduct, not a uniformly lenient regime of reviewing benefit determinations. 536 U.S. at 385, 122 S.Ct. 2151 (emphasis added and citation omitted). Thus, be cause Section 10-3-1116(3) requires insurance documents to provide a specific standard of review for a benefit denial and the right to a jury trial, the Court finds that Section 10-3-1116(3) is a law directed toward entities engaged in insurance. See Standard Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 584 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); see also Am. Council of
holding that a law which regulates what terms insurance companies can place in their policies regulates insurance companies holding that subcontractors primary and excess insurance policies must pay first and before contractors own insurance holding that a suicide exclusion regulates insurance and therefore falls within the insurance savings clause holding claims for negligent procurement of insurance accrued on date the insured purchased the insurance policies holding that the interests of two insurance companies were adverse under wis stat  102231a 19891990 relating to workers compensation when the respective liability of the two insurance companies depends on the determination of the date of injury