Opinion ID: 2362997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: relate to

Text: A state law, defined in section 1144(c)(1) to include all laws, decisions, rules, regulations, or other action having the effect of law, is preempted by ERISA only if it relates to a plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (1988). We must therefore begin with the fundamental inquiry: When does a state law relate to an employee benefit plan? The United States Supreme Court has loosely defined the parameters of the relate to requirement. A law `relates to' an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection or reference to such a plan. Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96-97, 103 S.Ct. at 2899-2900. Also the Court declared that [t]he phrase `relate to' was given its broad common-sense meaning. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 2389, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985). The Court has repeatedly stated that the words relate to should be construed expansively. See Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96-97, 103 S.Ct. at 2899-2900; Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 46-48, 107 S.Ct. at 1552-53; Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 8, 107 S.Ct. 2211, 2215-16, 96 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987). ERISA preemption applies not only to state laws but to all forms of state action dealing with the subject matters covered by this federal statute. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(c)(1) (1988); see also Shaw, 463 U.S. at 98, 103 S.Ct. at 2900. In keeping with this broad interpretation, the Court held that a cause of action for wrongful termination related to an ERISA plan where it was based on the allegation that the employer fired the employee to avoid paying benefits under a pension plan. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, ___ U.S. ____, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990). [2] Given these declarations by the Supreme Court, courts have not hesitated to find that state laws having an effect on employee benefit plans relate to such plans and are therefore preempted by ERISA. See, e.g., Ramirez v. Inter-Continental Hotels, 890 F.2d 760 (5th Cir.1989); Boren v. N.L. Indus., 889 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ____, 110 S.Ct. 3283, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990); Sommes Drug Stores Co. Employee Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan Enters., 793 F.2d 1456 (5th Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 479 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 884, 93 L.Ed.2d 837 (1987); Kanne v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 867 F.2d 489, cert, denied 492 U.S. 906, 109 S.Ct. 3216, 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989); Misic v. Building Serv. Employees Health & Welfare Trust, 789 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir.1986); Juckett v. Beecham Home Improvement Prods., Inc., 684 F.Supp. 448 (N.D.Tex. 1988); Systems, Inc. v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 956 (Tex.App.Dallas 1988, writ denied); Giles v. Texas Instruments Employees Pension Plan, 715 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.App.Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Felts v. Graphic Arts Employee Benefits Trust, 680 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist] 1984, no writ). Because of the breadth of the preemption clause and the broad remedial purpose of ERISA, `state laws found to be beyond the scope of [the preemption provision] are few.' Cefalu v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 871 F.2d 1290, 1294 (5th Cir.1989). The common law claim in Pilot Life was not alleged against the employee benefit plan, but against the insurance company that administered the plan. Nevertheless, the Court noted that the cause of action clearly related to a plan and was thus preempted. 481 U.S. at 47-48, 107 S.Ct. at 1553; see also Ramirez, 890 F.2d at 760, 762-63 (suit brought against former employer and its insurance carrier held to be preempted); Cefalu, 871 F.2d at 1292-93 (suit related to an ERISA plan even though it was alleged against the former employer and not the plan). The Catheys' claim for nursing care was made and denied pursuant to the Dow plan's terms, and they appealed this denial under the internal review provisions of the plan. We hold that the Catheys' claims against Dow and Met relate to an employee benefit plan; the claims are thus preempted unless a contrary result is mandated by the saving clause.