argument falters where he concludes that by paying premiums he has “associated” himself in a “business relationship” with Deluxe within the meaning of the MSP statute because his former employer is “in the business of providing health coverage.” Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, at 4. First, Deluxe is not in the business of providing health care insurance. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(B) (stating that “an employee benefit plan ... shall [not] be deemed to be an insurance company or other insurer ... or to be engaged in the business of insurance ... for purposes of any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies [or] insurance contracts”); FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 61-62, 111 5.Ct. 403, 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990) (<HOLDING>); see generally Laura J. Schacht, The Health
holding employee benefit plans that are insured are subject to indirect state insurance regulation holding that selffunded employee benefit plans governed by erisa are not subject to direct state regulation holding florida exemption statute for employee benefit plans was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans