preemptive force. As a matter of law, ERISA completely preempts state law claims that "relate to any employee benefit plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). The term "relate to" is given broad meaning under ERISA. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 732, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985); see also Briscoe v. Fine, 444 F.3d 478, 497 (6th Cir.2006) (noting that the Sixth Circuit applies ERISA preemption very broadly). Thus "[a] law `relates to’ an employee benefit plan ... if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan." Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 86-87, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983). "[O]nly those state laws and state law claims whose effect on employee benefit plans is merely tenuous, remote o S. 41, 48, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Here, the breach of contract claim relates
holding that the plaintiffs state common law causes of actions for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing as well as a statutory cause of action for unfair insurance practices under the california insurance code were preempted by erisa holding plaintiffs causes of action for breach of contract breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of the arizona insurance code were preempted by erisa holding that erisa preempted plaintiffs commonlaw causes of action including tortious breach of contract breach of fiduciary duties and fraud in the inducement that arose from a denial of benefits under the insurance contract recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach