To avoid ERISA’s strict limitations in the types of relief available and other procedural hurdles, many dissatisfied employees and other plan participants attempt to obtain employee benefits by filing state law claims.  For example, instead of making a claim for benefits under ERISA, dissatisfied employees often assert claims for intentional or negligent misrepresentation, negligence in plan administration, or violations of state consumer protection acts. That strategy of recasting claims for benefits under an ERISA plan as claims under state law, however, runs headlong into one of ERISA’s most potent defenses: the preemption defense. This defense is particularly important for companies that work in and near the employee benefits space and find themselves targeted with litigation arising from their work.

Beyond Benefits Claims: The Broad Scope of ERISA Preemption

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which governs most employee benefits plans, contains a sweeping preemption provision: ERISA supersedes not just formal claims for benefits under an ERISA-governed plan but “any and all state laws insofar as they…relate to any employee benefit plan.” Although the ERISA preemption defense is normally associated with lawsuits that seek plan benefits (for example health care coverage, pensions or other retirement benefits, or life insurance), in practice, the defense can be much broader.  Courts consistently interpret this language expansively and find any state law claim merely related to an ERISA-governed employee benefits plan is preempted.

This means that state law claims are, at times, preempted even where the employee is not explicitly seeking plan benefits. For example, where an employee accuses an insurer or technology platform of mispresenting the availability of a particular benefit and seeks damages arising from the misrepresentation, that claim will generally be preempted. The key question is whether the state law claim “relates to” an ERISA plan, not simply whether the claim explicitly seeks recovery of a benefit available under a plan.

Why Service Providers Are Frequent Targets

Service providers are frequently drawn into benefits-related litigation—not because they sponsor the plan or actually owe the sought-after employee benefits, but because they often have the most interaction with disappointed participants. Insurance companies, recordkeepers, accountants and consultants, attorneys advising on plan design or compliance, and even technology platforms supporting benefits administration are all on the front lines. This exposure to participants makes non-sponsor service providers common targets.

For these actors, understanding the contours of ERISA preemption is essential. Early identification of a viable preemption defense can shape litigation strategy, support removal to federal court, and in many cases, lead to dismissal of the claims altogether.

The Preemption Defense in Practice

Plaintiffs—often frustrated by procedural hurdles or limited remedies under ERISA—attempt to reframe their grievances as state law claims. Claims for benefits get rephrased as:

• “You told me I was covered”
• “You failed to inform me I needed to re-enroll”
• “You misrepresented my eligibility or benefits”

But these claims are each essentially claims to obtain or replace benefits otherwise available under an ERISA plan. On their face, they appear distinct from a claim for benefits. In substance, however, they frequently hinge on the existence and interpretation of an ERISA-governed plan and whether that plan would have otherwise provided benefits.

Courts routinely hold that such claims are preempted where the essence of the dispute is a failure to properly communicate or administer plan benefits. Even when framed as independent state law causes of action, these claims can be impermissible attempts to circumvent ERISA’s exclusive remedial structure.

For service providers who regularly communicate with plan participants, this makes ERISA preemption a practical and often dispositive defense.

ERISA May Still Control the Outcome

ERISA preemption remains a cornerstone of employee benefits litigation—and one that extends well beyond straightforward claims for traditional benefits. Where a state law claim is, at its core, an attempt to recover, reinterpret, or supplement plan benefits, preemption should be considered.

For service providers working in the benefits space, the lesson is clear: even when a claim is framed in the language of state law, ERISA may still control the outcome. For questions about this – and other employment law issues – the attorneys of Lasher’s Employment Law & Litigation group are here to help.