Case Explained: HEALTHCARE ALLY MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA, LLC V. WSP USA, INC., ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 Docket: 2:22-cv-04814- The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of HAMOC’s promissory estoppel claim but reversed the dismissal of its negligent misrepresentation claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that ERISA does not preempt the state law negligent misrepresentation claim because it does not “relate to” an ERISA plan under either the “connection with” or “reference to” tests. Applying the relationship test, the panel determined the claim did not bear upon an ERISA-regulated relationship (such as between a plan and its participant) but rather concerned representations made by an administrator to a third-party provider outside the scope of ERISA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme. Furthermore, under the “reference to” test, the court found the claim was not premised on the existence of an ERISA plan or essential to its survival; instead, it arose from Aetna’s independent tortious conduct in making false representations about reimbursement rates during verification calls, which induced La Peer to provide services. The panel distinguished its prior decision in *Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co.*, noting that *Bristol* preempted promissory estoppel claims because they sought to supplant the terms of an ERISA plan with a new oral agreement, whereas the negligent misrepresentation claim here seeks damages for an independent injury unrelated to the administration of plan benefits. Consequently, HAMOC may proceed with its state law negligent misrepresentation claim while its promissory estoppel claim remains dismissed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.