of the plan require payment for the services it rendered. In fact, the plaintiffs cause of action does not in any sense turn on an interpretation of the rights of a beneficiary under the plan. Rather, the complaint alleges that the agents of the defendant’s employee benefit plan misrepresented that the plan would cover the expenses of one of its beneficiaries. The estoppel claim is thus independent of the defendant’s actual obligations under the benefit plan. Id. at 884 (emphasis in original). The court distinguished eases which involved state common law actions brought by actual beneficiaries (employees who claimed rights to benefits pursuant to the terms of their benefit plans). Id.; cf. Misic v. Building Service Employees Health & Welfare Trust, 789 F.2d 1374, 1377-78 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). When the claim is not based on a right
holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that a thirdparty providers claim against insurer for promissory estoppel was not preempted by erisa because the thirdparty provider was not bound by the terms of the erisa plan 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 holding erisa preempts state contract and tort actions based on improper processing of claims for benefits