Confusion over ERISA preemption

[Rip Verkerke <ripv@virginia.edu>]

A student asked:

        I had a little confusion over an issue from ERISA
preemption (surprise, surprise). On your handout
summarizing decisions which elaborate the "relate to"
principle, you cite Met Life as standing for the
proposition that mandated mental health benefits are
preempted as they relate to ERISA plans because of their
significant impact on the costs and terms of such plans.
Is this a different Met Life than the one we read, or were
you referring to the point made in the assigned case that
self insurers would still get preemption of such laws? Or
am I just wrong about what the Met Life that we read stands
for (thought it said that mandated mental health benefits
only had direct effects on insurers and therefore fit
within the savings clause exception to ERISA preemption for
insurers)? Thanks for your help.


Rip responded:

I was focusing on the intermediate holding in Met Life, to wit:  mandated
mental health benefits unquestionably "relate to" an ERISA plan.  You are
absolutely right that the ultimate preemption question must include
consideration of the possible application of the savings and deemer clauses.
Thus, such provisions are preempted for self-insured plans and saved for
insured plans.

I hope that's helpful.

Regards,

Rip