ERISA Preemption Bars State Wrongful Death and Punitive Damages Claims Stemming from Benefit Denials

Introduction

In Cannon v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., No. 24-1862 (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 2025), the First Circuit addressed whether a Massachusetts wrongful death and punitive damages suit predicated on the denial of health‐insurance benefits is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Scott Cannon, acting individually and as personal representative of his partner Blaise Cannon’s estate, contended that BCBS’s denial of coverage for a specific asthma inhaler led to Blaise’s avoidable death. He invoked Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229 § 2 (wrongful death) and sought punitive damages under state law. The district court granted summary judgment for BCBS on grounds that ERISA’s express preemption clause (29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)) and its exclusive remedial scheme (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)) barred Cannon’s claim. Cannon appealed, relying on Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, 592 U.S. 80 (2020), to argue a revived state‐law right. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that ERISA preempts state‐law wrongful death and punitive damages suits that “relate to” ERISA‐governed plans or duplicate ERISA’s exclusive enforcement remedies.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of BCBS. It concluded:

ERISA express preemption (29 U.S.C. § 1144(a)) extinguishes Cannon’s state wrongful death and punitive damages claims because they “relate to” an ERISA plan—the denial of benefits under the policy must be referenced and interpreted to resolve liability.
ERISA’s civil enforcement provision (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B)) provides the exclusive remedy for benefit denials, and state‐law claims duplicative or supplementary to § 1132(a)(1)(B) are preempted under Davila/Pilot Life preemption.
Rutledge did nothing to alter the well‐established “connection with or reference to” preemption test or ERISA’s displacement of state remedies for benefit denials.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85 (1983) – articulated the “connection with or reference to” test for ERISA express preemption.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) – defined the scope of “State law” for preemption purposes.
Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141 (2001) – reaffirmed the preemption standard and its application to state laws affecting plan administration.
Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n, 592 U.S. 80 (2020) – clarified that cost‐regulation statutes without direct plan‐design mandates do not automatically relate to ERISA plans.
Turner v. Fallon Community Health Plan, 127 F.3d 196 (1st Cir. 1997) – held that wrongful death claims based on an ERISA plan denial are preempted because they are state‐law remedies for benefit denials.
Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) and Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987) – established that § 1132(a) preempts state‐law remedies that duplicate or supplement ERISA’s exclusive enforcement provisions.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two‐pronged preemption analysis:

Express Preemption (29 U.S.C. § 1144(a))
Under Shaw and Egelhoff, a state law “relates to” an ERISA plan if it has a connection with or reference to the plan. Cannon’s wrongful death claim depends entirely on interpreting coverage terms and the benefit‐denial rationale of the BCBS policy. Section 229 § 2 wrongful death actions require the trier of fact to determine whether the insurer breached its contractual obligation to pay for the inhaler—an inquiry squarely within ERISA’s plan administration context.
Conflict Preemption via ERISA’s Exclusive Remedies (29 U.S.C. § 1132(a))
Davila and Pilot Life instruct that ERISA’s civil enforcement mechanism is exclusive. If a beneficiary could have sued under § 1132(a)(1)(B) for denied benefits—and there is no independent state duty outside of ERISA—the beneficiary may not seek parallel state remedies for the same wrong. Here, any claim Blaise might have brought for wrongful denial clearly fell under § 1132(a)(1)(B). Cannon’s derivative wrongful death suit thus duplicates ERISA’s remedies and is therefore preempted.

Impact

This decision reaffirms the robust scope of ERISA preemption in benefit‐denial contexts. It underscores that:

Surviving beneficiaries cannot circumvent ERISA’s exclusivity by repackaging denials as state wrongful death claims.
Rutledge’s carve‐out for general cost‐regulation laws does not extend to state tort or contract claims that hinge on benefit determinations.
Plan administrators retain uniform authority over benefit disputes, free from varying state‐law remedies.

Future litigants and courts will view wrongful death suits arising from ERISA plan decisions as preempted, deterring attempts to pursue punitive damages or other state‐law penalties for benefit denials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Express Preemption (§ 1144(a)): ERISA says any state law “relating to” employee benefit plans is invalid. If resolving a state claim requires examining or interpreting an ERISA plan, it is “related to” and preempted.
Conflict Preemption (§ 1132(a)): ERISA provides its own remedies for denied benefits (e.g., suing to recover benefits due). If a state cause of action duplicates or adds to this federal remedy, it is preempted.
Derivative Wrongful Death: Under Massachusetts law, wrongful death claims belong solely to the deceased’s executor and are derivative of the decedent’s rights. If the decedent had no surviving remedy, the executor cannot bring a new claim.

Conclusion

Cannon v. BCBS of Massachusetts reaffirms that ERISA’s preemption clauses bar state‐law wrongful death and punitive damages actions rooted in the denial of ERISA‐governed benefits. By emphasizing that both express preemption (§ 1144(a)) and ERISA’s exclusive enforcement scheme (§ 1132(a)) displace parallel state remedies, the First Circuit maintains uniform, national governance of benefit disputes. The decision preserves ERISA’s policy balance—ensuring participants pursue remedies under the statutory ERISA framework rather than disparate state‐law avenues—and discourages end‐runs around federal exclusive jurisdiction for ERISA‐covered plans.