With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 110 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 862, 118 S.Ct. 167, 139 L.Ed.2d 110 (1997); Foley v. Southwest Texas HMO, Inc., 226 F.Supp.2d 886, 894 (E.D.Tex.2002); Baylor University Medical Center v. Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield, 331 F.Supp.2d 502, 507 (N.D.Tex.2004). Preemption of a plaintiffs state law causes of action has been found when: (1) the state law claim addresses areas of exclusive federa 9 L.Ed.2d 106 (2001); Anderson v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, 11 F.3d 1311, 1315 (5th Cir.) (finding that a former employee’s claims for demotion and wrongful termination were similarly preempted even though ERISA was only asserted as a defense), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 808, 115 S.Ct. 55, 130 L.Ed.2d 14 (1994); Hogan v. Kraft Foods, 969 F.2d 142, 144 (5th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). McSperitt’s common law claim for breach of

A: holding that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted where it was based on the same conduct as a preempted claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
B: 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
C: holding that breach of good faith and fair dealing claim requires showing of breach of contract
D: 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
B.