See Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269, 272 (2d Cir.1994) (stating that ERISA preempts state law causes of action that seek “to recover benefits düe to [the plaintiff under the terms of the] plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan” (alterations in original) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B))). In sum, no matter how reasonably the Court reads plaintiffs’ allegations (of unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, or deceptive conduct under N.Y. GBL § 349) in their favor, the essence of plaintiffs’ claims directly concerns the issue of benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), thereby prompting preemption. See, e.g., Coughlin v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 244 F.Supp.2d 883, 885-89 (N.D.Ill.2002) (<HOLDING>); Carducci v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 204
holding that insureds declaratory judgment class action claims seeking to retain tort settlements following their insurers claims for reimbursement were claims to enforce their rights under the terms of the plan and to clarify their rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan under erisa holding under the exclusive civil enforcement provisions of  502a as set forth in 29 usc  1132a that a beneficiary may sue to recover benefits due under the plan to enforce the participants rights under the plan or to clarify rights to future benefits holding that an erisa insurers declaratory suit seeking a favorable interpretation of a standard policy clause against a party having no obligations under the plan was not an action to enforce the plan terms holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan