Opinion ID: 1786277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Issue Preempted by Federal Law

Text: This case involves an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan. ERISA supersedes any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan covered by the statutory scheme. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). This preemption provision is `deliberately expansive' and [is] consistently construed to accomplish the congressional purpose of [e]nsuring certain minimum standards in the administration of employee benefit plans. Manning v. Hayes, 212 F.3d 866, 870 (5th Cir.2000) (quoting Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987)). Determination of beneficiary status is an area of core ERISA concern. Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 121 S.Ct. 1322, 149 L.Ed.2d 264 (2001) (holding that ERISA expressly preempted state statute providing that designation of spouse as beneficiary on nonprobate asset was automatically revoked upon divorce). Therefore, federal law controls. See, McMillan v. Parrott, 913 F.2d 310 (6th Cir.1990); Fox Valley & Vic. Const. Wkrs. Pension F. v. Brown, 897 F.2d 275 (7th Cir.1990) (en banc); Lyman Lumber Co. v. Hill, 877 F.2d 692 (8th Cir.1989).