preemption of state law. As noted above, however, Empire counsels a “cautious” interpretation of the FEHBA preemption clause and both cases established a distinction between the insured’s coverage and benefits and the insurer’s right to subrogation. In addition to the presumption against preemption, this Court’s analysis of whether FEHBA preempts Missouri’s law of subrogation must assess GHP’s right to subrogation with these considerations in mind. The FEHBA preemption clause provides that contract terms that “relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits)” preempt state law. The operative terms are “relate to,” “coverage” and “benefits.” See Kobold v. Aetna Life Ins., Co., 233 Ariz. 100, 309 P.3d 924, 927 (App.2013)(<HOLDING>). The term “relate to” generally means “having
holding that subrogation clauses in automobile policies do not constitute illegal assignments of personal injury claims holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law holding that fehba does not preempt arizona law barring subrogation of personal injury claims holding that congress did not intend to preempt state common law actions for personal injury based on the negligence of the airline or its employees holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims