124 S.Ct. 2488, 2495, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004). Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: The policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA. The six carefully integrated civil enforcement provisions found in § [1132(a)] of the statute as finally enacted ... provide strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies.... Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). As such, a claim that “duplicates, supplements, or supplants” the remedies provided by ERISA runs afoul of Congressional intent and is preempted. Id.; see also Kidneigh, 345 F.3d at 1185 (<HOLDING>). However, a claim only falls within ERISA’s
holding flsa enforcement scheme preempted contract negligence and fraud claims 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 holding claims under the kentucky act were preempted because they conflicted with erisas civil enforcement scheme holding that a proper waiver of interest by a nonpartieipant in a plan is not preempted by erisas antialienation provisions holding claim providing additional remedies conflicts with erisas remedial scheme and is preempted