based upon the Seventh Amendment controlling but it is persuasive for its logic. The Tenth Circuit has “decided that the proper common law analogue for a § 1132(a)(1)(B) claim for benefits is ‘an action to enforce a trust’ ... which at common law was an equitable action....” Graham, 589 F.3d at 1356-57 (internal citations omitted). Because an action under Section 1132(a) of ERISA is equitable rather than legal in nature, the right to a jury trial offends ERISA’s remedial structure. Section 10-3-1116(3) offends ERISA because, under Supreme Court precedent, the right to a jury trial “serve[s] as an alternate enforcement mechanism[] outside of ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions.” See Am. Council of Life Ins., 558 F.3d at 607; see also Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 217-18, 124 S.Ct. 2488 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right
holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state holding claims under the kentucky act were preempted because they conflicted with erisas civil enforcement scheme holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance holding claim providing additional remedies conflicts with erisas remedial scheme and is preempted holding that even a state law  regulating insurance will be preempted if it provides a separate vehicle to assert a claim for benefits outside of or in addition to erisas remedial scheme