Gregory Mayer v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Is a state law prescribing de novo judicial review for challenged benefit determinations, regardless of any discretion the Plan grants to the administrator, preempted by ERISA? If not, does enforcing such a state law with regard to the court challenge of a beneficiary who resides outside of the state in which the Plan was delivered violate the Commerce Clause (as the Second Circuit ruled below)?

Should lower courts assessing challenged benefit determinations enforce choice-of-law provisions contained in an ERISA Plan and, if so, which of the differing approaches employed by the circuits should a lower court apply?