Hanson, 953 F.Supp. at 275; Robinson, 1996 WL 653846, at *7; Williams v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Virginia, 827 F.Supp. 1228, 1229-30 (E.D.Va.1993). Rievley’s second claim, breach of fiduciary duty, is similarly cognizable under FEHBA’s civil enforcement provisions. Although this claim is based in tort instead of contract, it is essentially an assertion “that the plan failed to live up to its contractual duty in ways that [Tennessee] law would deem appropriate.” Negron, 6 F.Supp.2d at 370 & n. 2. Because it is a demand “for contractual benefits that were not realized,” and FEHBA preempts state law contract claims, Rievley’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is within the scope of FEHBA’s civil enforcement provision and is preempted. Id. at 370; see also Hayes, 819 F.2d at 926 & n. 1 (<HOLDING>); Williams, 827 F.Supp. at 1229-30 (same);
holding that tort claims arising out of the manner in which a benefit claim is handled are preempted by fehba holding that utsa preempted a breach of fiduciary duty claim because the factual allegations supporting that claim involved only the misappropriation of  information holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty can be resolved under connecticut law