Frank H. Smith v. United Parcel Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claims of fraud, negligence, wantonness, or willfulness, and outrage were preempted by the Carmack Amendment because they arose from UPS’s failure to transport and deliver packages
• noting that if the defendant had intentionally injured plaintiffs, the plaintiffs claim would not have been preempted
• noting that if the defendant had intentionally injured plaintiffs, the plaintiff’s claim would not have been preempted
• finding claims of fraud, negligence, wantonness, and willfulness arising from a failure to deliver goods to be preempted
• affirming the district court’s order dismissing state tort claims that fell “squarely within the preemption coverage of the Carmack Amendment” because the claims were based on the carrier’s failure to deliver goods
• affirming dismissal with prejudice of state-law claims preempted by the Carmack Amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).