is precluded from asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty by ERISA itself since she is also pursuing a claim for denial of benefits in this action. As the Supreme Court held in Varity Corp. v. Howe, a claim for benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) is the exclusive remedy under ERISA by a claimant for personal recovery when that remedy is available, as it is in this case. 516 U.S. 489, 512, 116 S.Ct. 1065, 134 L.Ed.2d 130 (1996). Here, because plaintiff is pursuing a claim for a denial benefits under that chief remedy provision, [see Doc. 1, Ex. A at ¶ 13], she is not entitled to also recover for defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Varity Corp., 516 U.S. at 515, 116 S.Ct. 1065; see also Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., Inc., 150 F.3d 609, 613 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, plaintiffs claim for breach of
holding that  1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under  1132a3 is thus not appropriate holding that claims for promissory estoppel may be pursued under  1132a3 even where no breach of fiduciary duty is alleged holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding that an individual who brings a lawsuit pursuant to  1132a1b to challenge a denial of disability benefits does not also have a right to a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty under  1132a3 holding plaintiff had no claim under  1132a3 because his grievance that benefits were denied is specifically addressed in  1132a1b