traditionally left to state regulation_”); Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 653 n.3 (9th Cir.1998) (“Recently, the scope of this broad ‘relate to’ preemption was markedly narrowed.”) In determining whether a state law relates to ERISA, a court -must evaluate whether the state law “has a connection with or reference to” employee benefit plans. District of Columbia v. G ISA preemption in circumstances similar to the Basts’. The Washington Supreme Court has held that common law claims for negligence, outrage, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and fraud which are based upon an interference with an attainment of benefits are preempted by ERISA. Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum, 124 Wash.2d 749, 763, 881 P.2d 216 (1994); Hepler v. CBS, Inc., 39 Wash.App. 838, 696 P.2d 596 (1985) (<HOLDING>). ERISA, however, has a savings clause. This
holding erisa preempts state contract and tort actions based on improper processing of claims for benefits holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that erisa preempts a plaintiffs claims for violation of the state insurance code and consumer protection act holding that erisa preempts derivatively asserted thirdparty claims