of the United States, and to provide for the free flow of commerce, that minimum standards be provided assuring the equitable character of such plans and their financial soundness. 29 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Allison contends that this legislative declaration connotes that Congress passed ERISA with the intent of benefitting employees and not employers. The court, however, notes that this policy statement is totally devoid of any limitations, restrictions, or remarks regarding the right of employee welfare benefit plans governed by ERISA to seek subrogation or reimbursement. Moreover, it must be recognized that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts have upheld subrogation provisions in ERISA plans. See Waller v. Hormel Foods Corp., 120 F.3d 138, 140 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. St. Paul Fire and
holding that the claim is preempted because a court entertaining the merits of this misrepresentation claim would be forced to calculate plan benefits that would have been owed to the plaintiff under the erisa plans holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language holding that erisa medical benefits plans subrogation provision gave plan first priority claim to any recovery holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans