Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(1) seek recovery of benefits under the plan; (2) enforce his rights as provided by the plan; or (3) obtain clarification of any possible future benefits to which he may be entitled under the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The law is clear, however, that “Section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), expressly ‘supersedes any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan’ covered by ERISA.” Rozzell v. Security Services, Inc., 38 F.3d 819, 821 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting Ingersoll-Rand Company v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990)) (citations omitted). Courts have held that ERISA completely preempts the specific state law claims McSperitt alleges. See, e.g., Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 62-64, 107 S.Ct. 1542 ; McNeil v. Time Insurance Company, 205 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the state law claims were not preempted
B. holding that erisa preempted a state law claim because the courts inquiry centered on the employee benefits plan at issue
C. holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan
D. holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy
E. holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.