Reviewing the grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee de novo, we affirm for the following reasons:

1. “ERISA does not preempt state law claims when the claims ‘affect only [an employee’s] employer/employee relationship with [an employer] and not her administrator/beneficiary relationship with the company.” Rokohl v. Texaco, Inc., 77 F.3d 126, 129 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing cases) (emphasis in original). The distinction appellants seek to draw between 1) the unpaid ERISA benefits and 2) medical expenses which arose after the discovery of the alleged negligent procurement does not help appellant. Some, if not all, of the damages arising under the former are necessarily encompassed by the latter. The district court properly concluded that the negligence claim was conflict preempted under ERISA § 514.

2. ERISA § 502(a)(2) allows a beneficiary to sue for breach of fiduciary duty. ERISA also requires fiduciaries to discharge their duties “solely *396 in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries[,]” using “care, skill, prudence, and diligence.” 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1). The appellants’ negligent procurement of the failed insurer allegation is covered by this language.

3. For the reasons stated by the district court, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the ap-pellee.

Affirmed.