context: Unlike statutes that provide general remedies for unfair practice, fraud, and breach of contract, [the New York law] concerns the amount of the payment to which an insured is entitled. We believe that this provision is far more similar to the statute addressed in Metropolitan Life, and is precisely the type of statute that Congress intended to save from ERISA preemption.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 715 F.2d 784, 786
citation_a.parenthetical: state regulation setting maximum commission that life insurance salesmen may earn saved from preemption
citation_a.sentence: See Metropolitan Life, 471 U.S. at 744, 105 S.Ct. at 2391 (finding no “contrary case authority suggesting that laws regulating the terms of insurance contracts should not be understood as laws that regulate insurance”); cf. American Progressive Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Corcoran, 715 F.2d 784, 786 (2d Cir.1983) (state regulation setting maximum commission that life insurance salesmen may earn saved from preemption).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 471 U.S. 744, 744
citation_b.parenthetical: finding no "contrary case authority suggesting that laws regulating the terms of insurance contracts should not be understood as laws that regulate insurance"
citation_b.sentence: See Metropolitan Life, 471 U.S. at 744, 105 S.Ct. at 2391 (finding no “contrary case authority suggesting that laws regulating the terms of insurance contracts should not be understood as laws that regulate insurance”); cf. American Progressive Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Corcoran, 715 F.2d 784, 786 (2d Cir.1983) (state regulation setting maximum commission that life insurance salesmen may earn saved from preemption).