George E. Graf v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co.

15 F.3d 1085 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. George E. GRAF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., et. al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55496. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 1993. Decided Dec. 7, 1993. 1 Before: FLETCHER, D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WILL, District Judge. * 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 George Graf appeals the district court's judgment that dismissed his complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Graf claims that the conversion policy he received through his employer is not subject to ERISA regulation. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq. We affirm. I. The Group Plan is Subject to ERISA 4 Graf argues that Provident and Transamerica failed to prove that the group insurance plan through which Graf was issued his conversion policy was subject to ERISA preemption. ERISA preemption is a question of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo as a question of law. See…