v. Aetna U.S. Health Care, Inc., 320 F.3d 1076, 1078 (10th Cir.2003). “A state law otherwise regulating insurance ... may still be preempted if it allows plan participants and beneficiaries ‘to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA.’ ” Conover, 320 F.3d at 1078 & n. 2 (quoting Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 54, 107 S.Ct. 1549, and Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355, 377, 122 S.Ct. 2151, 153 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002)). Under ERISA’s six civil enforcement provisions, a plan participant or beneficiary may bring a civil action to recover benefits due, enforce rights, clarify future benefits, enforce provisions of the plan or ERISA, enjoin or redress violations of , 102 (W.D.Ky.1993) (same); Curry v. Cincinnati Equitable Ins. Co., 834 S.W.2d 701 (Ky.Ct.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Elliot v. Fortis Benefits
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding claims under the kentucky act were preempted because the kentucky act conflicts with the most specific and important of the erisa civil enforcement provisions holding claim providing additional remedies conflicts with erisas remedial scheme and is preempted holding claims under the kentucky act were preempted because they conflicted with erisas civil enforcement scheme holding flsa enforcement scheme preempted contract negligence and fraud claims