concern, and (2) the claim directly affects the relationship between traditional ERISA entities — the employer, the plan and its fiduciaries, and the participants and beneficiaries. Memorial Hospital, 904 F.2d at 245; Baylor, 331 F.Supp.2d at 507; Foley, 226 F.Supp.2d at 894. C. McSperitt’s State Law Claims Against Hartford 1. Breach of Contract McSperitt asserts that Hartford breached a contract with him by cancelling his LTD benefits, even though he continued to be disabled as defined in the plan. Petition ¶¶ 10-12, attached to Notice of Removal as Exhibit 1. McSperitt’s breach of contract claims thus arise out of his claim for LTD benefits and are connected to his employee benefit plan. There is no question that McSperitt, as an ERISA participant, has the right t 191 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1191, 121 S.Ct. 1189,
holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations 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 where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing holding that erisa  514a preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress