Opinion ID: 789268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Employee Retirement Income Security Act Preemption

Text: 10 The first question is whether plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The relevant preemption clause states that the Act shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to an employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to preempt state law claims that would allow employee benefit plan beneficiaries to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 54, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). Such an interpretation is necessary, according to the Court, to give effect to Congress's intent that the civil enforcement provisions of ERISA § 502(a) be the exclusive vehicle for actions by ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits. Id. at 52, 107 S.Ct. 1549. We have recognized the broad sweep of the Act's preemption provision in relation to state law claims based upon an improper denial of benefits, noting that virtually all state law claims relating to an employee benefit plan are preempted by ERISA. Cromwell v. Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp., 944 F.2d 1272, 1276 (6th Cir.1991). 11 The parties concede that Formica's pension plan is governed by the Act. Thus, to determine whether plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted, we must determine whether the claims relate to Formica's pension plan. To do that, we consider the kind of relief that plaintiffs' seek, and its relation to the pension plan. 12 Plaintiffs claim that [n]othing about this claim or the remedy sought impacts, or in any way effects [sic], an employee benefit plan[,] for the claim lies solely against Formica for the value of forgone employment. Plaintiffs emphasize that because they would be satisfied with payment of the overpayment/reduced payment differential from Formica, rather than the pension plan, then the Act is not implicated and preemption is unwarranted. Plaintiffs' argument is made clear by the following exchange: 13 THE COURT: Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm hearing from you is what your people want is status quo ante, before there was a cut in the checks, and you don't really care where that difference comes from, whether it is out of the pension plan's pot of money or the corporation chips in — 14 [COUNSEL]: No. 15 THE COURT: — pending the administrative resolution. 16 [COUNSEL]: That's true, we don't care where it comes from. We care how much money they have in their pockets at the end of the month. That's what we care about. 17 Even so, it is clear that all of plaintiffs' state law claims stem from the actions of Formica in the processing of their benefit payments. Furthermore, the amount that Formica would owe, assuming relief is granted, is a function of how much the pension plan pays to each plaintiff. It is also well-established that such state law tort claims are preempted by the Act. See Pilot Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 57, 107 S.Ct. 1549 (state law bad-faith claim preempted); Tolton v. Am. Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir.1995) (finding state-law claims for wrongful death, improper denial of benefits, medical malpractice, and insurance bad faith were preempted because defendants were determining what benefits were available to [plaintiff] under the plan); Cromwell, 944 F.2d at 1276 (holding state-law claims of promissory estoppel, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of good faith based on denial of benefits are at the very heart of issues within the scope of ERISA's exclusive regulation). Thus, plaintiffs' state law claims necessarily relate to Formica's pension plan. The district court correctly found that the claims are preempted.