United Parcel Service of America Inc. is pre-empted under federal law from breach of contract and other state law claims in connection with the loss of $150,000 in missing packages containing specialty gold and silver coins, says an appeals court in upholding a ruling against Lloyd's of London syndicates.

A total of 27 shipments of packages shipped with UPS by Wilmington, Delaware-based First State Depository L.L.C., which provides customer, shipping and accounting services for coins and special metals, were lost or stolen during an eight-week period in early 2012, according to Tuesday's ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Certain Underwriters at Interest at Lloyd's of London et al. v. United Parcel Service of America Inc.

Philadelphia-based UPS never located any of the missing packages, which were allegedly worth a total of about $150,000, according to the ruling.

Lloyd's filed state law claims in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against UPS for charges including breach of contract, negligence and negligent supervision of employees, according to the ruling.

The District Court dismissed the case, holding that a 1906 federal law pre-empted all of the underwriters' state law claims. The three-judge appellate panel of the 3rd Circuit unanimously agreed.

The 1906 Carmack Amendment permits carriers to limit their liability by agreement in a shipment's bill of lading, according to the three-judge panel. Originally applicable only to interstate rail shipments, it became applicable to motor carriers as well in 1935, according to the ruling.

“For over 100 years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Carmack Amendment has completely occupied the field of interstate shipping” and has “consistently described the amendments' pre-emptive force as exceedingly broad,” said the ruling.

The courts of appeal “have also unanimously held that the Carmack Amendment 'pre-empts all state or common law remedies available to a shipper against carrier loss or damage to interstate shipments,'” said the ruling, in quoting an earlier decision.

The ruling also held that an exception to the Carmack Amendment was in inapplicable because of this pre-emption.