circumspect to utilize federal common law to address issues that bear at most a tangential relationship to the purposes of ERISA." Singer v. Black & Decker Corp., 964 F.2d 1449, 1452 (4th Cir.1992). The federal substantial compliance doctrine suggested by the district court does not pose any of these problems. 22 . The device of federal common law does not authorize federal courts to smuggle state common law principles into ERISA without regard for the statutory text.... State rights and remedies that are expressly preempted under ERISA by 29 U.S.C. § 1144 may not be resuscitated as federal common law claims without an exacting examination of whether ERISA permits such a result. Singer v. Black & Decker Corp., 964 F.2d 1449, 1453 (4th Cir.1992) (Wilkinson, J., concurri , 866 (1940) (<HOLDING>), the district court characterized South
holding that insured had not substantially complied with the policys change of beneficiary provisions when the hospitalized insured was physically unable to leave her bed and was unable to retrieve the policy from her lock box at the bank to return to the company for endorsement as required by the terms of the policy holding that insured substantially complied with the manner of changing the beneficiary as required by the policy holding that an insured has substantially complied with the change of beneficiary provisions of a life insurance policy when he has done all that he could to comply with the provisions holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms