of this provision. It was “intended to apply in its broadest sense to all actions of State or local governments,” and to “reserv[e] to Federal authority the sole power to regulate the field of employee benefit plans.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 99, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2901, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) (quoting 120 Cong. Rec. 29933, 29197 (1974)). The preemptive sweep of section 1144(a) is not limited to “state laws specifically designed to affect employee benefit plans,” nor does it “pre-empt only state laws dealing with the subject matters covered by ERISA.” 463 U.S. at 98, 103 S.Ct. at 2900. On the contrary, a law “relates to” a plan if it has any “connection with or reference to” the plan. Pilot Life Ins. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 47, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1553, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987) (<HOLDING>). See also Authier v. Ginsberg, 757 F.2d 796,
holding that erisa preempts a plaintiffs claims for violation of the state insurance code and consumer protection act holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans holding erisa preempts state contract and tort actions based on improper processing of claims for benefits holding that erisa preempts state law claims of fraud and misrepresentation that are based upon the failure of a covered plan to pay benefits holding that state law causes of action arising from improper processing of a claim for benefits are preempted