OPINION AND ORDER After her husband tragically and unexpectedly passed away, Plaintiff Jyoti Saini sought benefits under a group accident insurance policy issued to her husband by his former employer. The insurance provider, CIGNA Life Insurance Company of New York (“CIGNA”), denied Plaintiff’s claim, and after exhausting her administrative remedies, she sued CIGNA. Plaintiff’s complaint includes claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), Pub. L. 93-406, 88 Stat. 829; as well as Section 2601 of the New York Insurance Law and Section 349 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”). Pending before the Court is CIGNA’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state-law claims. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.BACKGROUND1A. Factual BackgroundCIGNA’s motion to dismiss turns largely on questions of law rather than allegations of fact. The Court therefore recounts the underlying facts only as necessary for context. 1. Mr. Saini’s Passing and the Subsequent InvestigationThis case arises out of Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the group accident insurance policy of her late husband, Rakesh Saini (“Mr. Saini”), after his death in April 2015. (See Am. Compl.
1, 6, 12). On April 19, 2015, Mr. Saini was swimming with one of the Sainis’ two children in a pool at the apartment complex in which the family lived; at that time, Plaintiff was in the apartment with their younger child. (Id. at6). As Plaintiff was feeding the younger child, the older child returned to the apartment and told Plaintiff that Mr. Saini was nonresponsive. (Id. at7). Upon arriving at the scene, Plaintiff found her husband dead, face down in the pool. (See id. at9). A death certificate filed on April 21, 2015, cited the cause of death as “freshwater drowning” and the manner of death as an “accident.” (Admin. R. 206).An autopsy report by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office also identified the cause of death as an accidental drowning. (Admin R. 54). The autopsy report diagnosed “[p]ulmonary congestion and edema…with foamy fluid in airways,” and it noted further that a cardiovascular pathology report discovered “[a]ctive lymphocytic myocarditis of the cardiac conduction system[.]” (Id. at 55). The cardiovascular pathology report also diagnosed “ [a]ctive lymphocytic myocarditis within atrioventricular node and penetrating His bundle.” (Id. at 61). A toxicology report for Mr. Saini tested negative for any substances. (Id. at 55). 2. CIGNA’s Review and Denial of Plaintiff’s Claim for BenefitsOn May 5, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a claim to CIGNA for benefits under Mr. Saini’s group accident policy, which CIGNA had issued to his employer, Tata Consulting Services Limited. (See Admin R. 1, 13, 35). In the process of investigating the claim, CIGNA solicited the opinion of Dr. R. Norton Hall as to whether “Mr. Saini suffered a medical event prior to his drowning[.]” (Id. at 103). After reviewing the available medical evidence, Dr. Hall explained that the autopsy report revealed “ acute myocarditis, an inflammatory condition of the heart with lymphocytic invasion of the conduction system of the heart at the atrioventricular node and Bundle of His[.]” (Id. at 104). This condition “ interrupt[s] the nerve impulses that trigger the ventricles to contract and the heart to beat, thus causing a sudden electrical cardiac death.” (Id.). Dr. Hall thus concluded that “Mr. Saini suffered an acute medical event that resulted in a sudden cardiac death prior to being found face down in the water.” (Id.).2On August 6, 2015, CIGNA issued its determination on Plaintiff’s claim for benefits, in which it explained that she was not entitled to benefits under Mr. Saini’s insurance policy. (See Admin. R. 35). The decision relied on an exclusion from coverage in the policy providing as follows:[B]enefits will not be paid for any Covered Injury or Covered Loss which, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, is caused by or results from any of the following unless coverage is specifically provided for by name in the Description of Benefits Section:…Sickness, disease, bodily or mental infirmity, bacterial or viral infection or medical or surgical treatment thereof, except for any bacterial infection resulting from an accidental external cut or wound or accidental ingestion of contaminated food.(Id.). In addition, the policy defined a “Covered Accident as ‘a sudden, unforeseeable, external event that…is not contributed to by disease, Sickness, mental or bodily infirmity.” (Id. at 37 (ellipsis in original)). Thus, relying on the discovery of Mr. Saini’s heart condition, CIGNA determined that his “drowning and death were precipitated by an internal, medical event” that “does not meet the definition of a Covered Accident as defined by [the] policy,” and “because his drowning was caused by a sudden cardiac event, his death is specifically excluded by the terms of [the] policy[.]” (Id.).On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff appealed CIGNA’s initial determination. (Admin. R. 31). In processing the appeal, CIGNA solicited a review of the case by Dr. J. Scott Denton, a forensic pathologist. (See id. at 21; Def. Br. 7). Dr. Denton opined “that the most likely cause of death for Mr. Saini is best certified as drowning due to lymphocytic myocarditis of the cardiac conduction system.” (Admin. R. 21). Based on this opinion, on February 2, 2016, CIGNA issued its final decision denying Plaintiff benefits. (Id. at 13).B. Procedural BackgroundPlaintiff filed the initial complaint in this action on March 16, 2017 (Dkt. #2), and she amended her complaint on April 13, 2017 (Dkt. #11). The Amended Complaint includes the following causes of action:i. Declaratory relief “pursuant to [Section] 501(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA[,] 29 U.S.C.[] §1132(a)(1)(B),” in the form of an order “declaring that the action of [CIGNA] in denying [P]laintiff’s…claim is illegal and contrary to law and that [P]laintiff is entitled to recover her lawful benefits under the Plan, along with attorney fees, costs and expenses and pre[-] and post-judgment interest.”ii. “Recovery of benefits under the Plan” pursuant to [Section] 501(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA[,] 29 U.S.C.[] §1132(a)(1)(B),” in the form of an order “directing [CIGNA] to pay the benefits that are due to [P]laintiff under the Plan, that are available to [P]laintiff[.]“iii. “‘Other equitable relief,’ pursuant to [Section] 501(a)(3) of ERISA[,] 29 U.S.C.[] §1132(a)(3) for all her other damages, including compensatory damages[.]“3iv. Damages under New York law for “‘bad faith and unfair claims settlement practice and procedures and unfair trade practices’ in violation of [Section] 2601 of the New York State Insurance Law and for ‘deceptive business practices,’ in violation of [Section] 349 of the [GBL.]“(Am. Compl.
