Key Takeaways
- On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238.
- The Court unanimously held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) does not preempt state-law negligent-hiring (negligent-selection) claims against freight brokers who arrange shipments with unsafe motor carriers.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion of the Court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, filed a concurrence.
- The decision resolves a long-running circuit split between the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits (which held such claims preempted) and the Sixth and Ninth Circuits (which held them not preempted).
- The bottom line: people seriously injured or killed in crashes involving brokered freight loads can now pursue state common-law claims against the broker in any U.S. jurisdiction, provided the elements of negligence are met.
What Is a Trucking Broker, and Why Does Liability Matter?
A freight broker (also called a transportation broker or property broker) is a middleman in the U.S. trucking industry. A broker does not own trucks, does not employ drivers, and typically never touches the freight. Instead, brokers contract with shippers who need a load moved and then hire a motor carrier — the trucking company that actually owns the truck and employs the driver — to perform the haul.
Brokers earn the difference between what the shipper pays and what the carrier accepts. They are regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and must hold a federal broker authority (an "MC" number) and post a $75,000 surety bond under 49 U.S.C. §13906.
The largest brokers in the United States — including C.H. Robinson, Total Quality Logistics (TQL), Coyote Logistics, Echo Global Logistics, and Landstar — move billions of dollars of freight each year. Some loads are arranged in seconds through automated software. The question of whether brokers can be sued when they hire an unsafe trucking company has been one of the most consequential open issues in transportation law for more than a decade.
That question is now answered. This Supreme Court decision allows people injured in a truck crash to bring a lawsuit against a trucking broker that hired an unsafe trucking company.
The Supreme Court's Decision: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
The Crash That Started the Case
On December 7, 2017, Shawn Montgomery, a professional truck driver, was stopped on the shoulder of Interstate 70 in Illinois when his tractor-trailer was rear-ended by a Mack truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena. Varela-Mojena was hauling a load of plastic pots for Caribe Transport II, LLC, a small interstate motor carrier. The shipment had been arranged by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., one of the largest freight brokers in North America.
Montgomery's injuries were catastrophic. His leg was amputated and he sustained other permanent injuries. He sued both Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson, alleging that C.H. Robinson had negligently selected Caribe Transport and Varela-Mojena to haul the load. Montgomery's complaint pointed to publicly available federal SAFER and SMS safety data that, he argued, should have flagged Caribe as an unreasonably risky carrier.
Our friends and co-counsel, Michael Leizerman and Rena Leizerman at the Law Firm for Truck Crash Safety, handled the Montgomery v. Caribe Transport case including its appeals.
The Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
The question presented was whether the FAAAA's preemption clause, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), bars a state common-law negligent-hiring claim against a broker — or whether such a claim is rescued by the statute's safety exception at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A), which preserves "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."
In simpler terms: when a broker hires a dangerous trucking company, can the injured person sue the broker under state law, or did Congress wipe out that right of action in 1994?
The Holding
In an opinion delivered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court held that the FAAAA does not preempt state-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers. A negligent-hiring claim is "with respect to motor vehicles" because it directly concerns the safety of the trucks operating on the public roads. The statute therefore preserves the states' authority to apply ordinary tort principles to a broker's selection of a motor carrier.
Justice Barrett wrote that the phrase "with respect to" carries its ordinary meaning of "concerns." A common-law duty requiring a broker to use reasonable care when entrusting a load to a motor carrier "concerns" — quite directly — the safety of the motor vehicle that will carry the load. The Court rejected the broker industry's argument that the exception is limited to direct, vehicle-specific safety rules (such as equipment, weight, or inspection standards). In a memorable passage, Justice Barrett wrote that the Court would rather "live with the mystery than rewrite the statute" when confronting ambiguities in the FAAAA's structure.
The Kavanaugh Concurrence
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, concurred in the judgment. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the case was closer than the majority let on. He emphasized that "with respect to motor vehicles" could plausibly be read more narrowly to require a direct nexus between the regulation and a vehicle's operation, but he ultimately agreed that negligent-hiring duties were sufficiently connected to motor-vehicle safety to fall within the exception.
Why It Matters
Before Montgomery, the answer to "can I sue the broker?" depended on the federal circuit in which the crash occurred:
- The Seventh Circuit (Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023)) and the Eleventh Circuit (Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023)) held that the FAAAA preempted negligent-hiring claims against brokers.
- The Ninth Circuit (Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020)) and, more recently, the Sixth Circuit (Cox v. Total Quality Logistics) held that such claims survived preemption under the safety exception.
That circuit split is now resolved in favor of injury victims. The same rule applies in Indiana, Texas, California, Florida, Ohio, and every other state.
The FAAAA Preemption Framework, Explained
To understand the significance of Montgomery, it helps to walk through the statute that the Court interpreted.
The Preemption Clause
In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which deregulated the trucking industry at the state level. Section 14501(c)(1) preempts any state law "related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property."
The clause was modeled on the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and was designed to prevent states from re-imposing a patchwork of economic regulation on an industry Congress had just deregulated.
The Safety Exception
But Congress did not strip states of all authority over interstate trucking. Section 14501(c)(2)(A) carves out a key exception: the preemption clause "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."
Every preemption case under the FAAAA — including Montgomery — turns on what that phrase means. The Supreme Court's earlier FAAAA decision in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 552 U.S. 364 (2008), broadly construed the preemption clause but did not directly address the scope of the safety exception in the context of common-law tort suits.
Why the Industry Cared
If the FAAAA preempted negligent-hiring claims, brokers would be effectively immune from state tort liability for selecting dangerous carriers — even when the broker had real-time access to FMCSA safety data showing the carrier was a higher-than-average crash risk. Plaintiffs' lawyers had long argued that broker immunity created perverse incentives, encouraging brokers to chase the cheapest carriers without vetting safety. Montgomery now puts that argument to rest.
What Is "Broker Liability" — and What Theories Survive Montgomery?
Brokers can be sued under several overlapping theories. Not every theory was at issue in Montgomery, but the decision strengthens all of them by reaffirming that state tort law applies.
1. Negligent Hiring / Negligent Selection
This is the theory directly addressed in Montgomery. A broker has a duty to exercise reasonable care when selecting a motor carrier to haul a load. If the broker hires a carrier that the broker knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, was unsafe — and that carrier causes a crash — the broker can be liable.
Evidence typically includes:
- The carrier's CSA / SMS scores in the FMCSA's Safety Measurement System (unsafe driving, hours-of-service, vehicle maintenance, controlled substances, crash indicator, etc.)
- The carrier's out-of-service rate for drivers and vehicles compared to the national average
- The carrier's operating authority status (active, conditional, or revoked)
- The carrier's insurance filings and lapses
- Prior crash history visible on SAFER
- Whether the broker followed its own internal vetting policies
2. Negligent Retention / Negligent Monitoring
Even if a broker properly vetted a carrier at the outset of a long-term relationship, the broker may have a continuing duty to monitor safety data and to stop tendering loads if the carrier's safety profile deteriorates.
3. Vicarious Liability / Agency
Some plaintiffs argue that the broker exercised so much control over the carrier — through electronic logging device data, tracking apps, dispatch instructions, and pricing leverage — that the carrier was, in practical effect, the broker's agent. Vicarious-liability claims were not the focus of Montgomery, but the decision removes the FAAAA defense that brokers had used to dismiss them.
4. Negligent Undertaking
If a broker affirmatively represents to a shipper or the public that it vets carriers for safety, and then fails to do so, the broker may be liable under a § 324A undertaking theory in jurisdictions that follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
5. Joint Venture / Logistics Provider Liability
Where the broker functions as a third-party logistics provider (3PL) that handles dispatch, routing, paperwork, payment, and customer service, plaintiffs increasingly argue that the broker has crossed the line from intermediary to integrated operator.
What an Injured Person Has to Prove After Montgomery
To win a negligent-hiring claim against a broker after Montgomery, an injured plaintiff (or the family of a person killed in a crash) generally must prove the elements of negligence under the law of the state where the crash occurred:
- Duty. The broker owed a duty of reasonable care in selecting the motor carrier.
- Breach. The broker failed to exercise that reasonable care — for example, by ignoring red-flag safety data or by skipping its own vetting policies.
- Causation. The carrier's unsafe operation, which the broker should have foreseen, was a cause of the crash.
- Damages. The plaintiff suffered injury, loss, or wrongful death.
Critically, Montgomery did not create a federal cause of action or a uniform federal standard of care. It simply held that the FAAAA does not knock state common law off the field. The duty itself, and the standard of care, will continue to be developed state by state.
Practical Implications for the Trucking Industry
For Freight Brokers
Brokers should expect:
- Tighter carrier-vetting standards. Many large brokers already use third-party vetting platforms such as Carrier411, MyCarrierPortal, RMIS, Highway, and Assure Assist. After Montgomery, the cost of skipping or overriding those checks just went up.
- More documentation. Brokers will want a paper trail showing what data they reviewed, when, and what they concluded. Sticky-note vetting is over.
- Higher insurance premiums. Contingent auto liability and broker errors-and-omissions coverage are likely to reprice across the market.
- Revised broker-carrier agreements. Expect more aggressive indemnification, additional-insured, and primary-and-noncontributory clauses pushing risk down to carriers — though those contractual shifts will not bind injured third parties.
For Motor Carriers
Small carriers with marginal CSA scores may find it harder to book loads. Brokers will be more selective, and some carriers will be excluded from the brokerage market entirely. That is, in fact, one of the policy outcomes the plaintiffs' bar predicted: market pressure that pulls dangerous trucks off the road.
For Shippers
Shippers that hire brokers should reassess whether their transportation service agreements allocate risk appropriately, and whether they should require evidence of broker vetting policies. Shippers should also consider whether using a broker (rather than directly contracting with carriers) still meaningfully insulates them from liability — Montgomery does not directly address shipper liability, but the same negligent-hiring logic will inform parallel claims against shippers in many states.
For Insurers
Auto liability underwriters who write broker policies will need to re-rate the broker book of business. Excess insurers who depended on FAAAA preemption to cap exposure will need a new strategy.
What Montgomery Means for Crash Victims
For people seriously hurt — or for families of those killed — in crashes involving an interstate trucking load, the decision is significant for several reasons.
First, it expands the pool of potential defendants. In many large-truck crashes, the motor carrier carries only the federally required $750,000 in primary auto liability insurance (most carriers do; many freight carriers carry $1,000,000). For a catastrophic injury — a traumatic brain injury, paraplegia, a fatal crash — that limit is often inadequate. The broker frequently has substantially more available coverage.
Second, the decision aligns the legal rules nationwide. Whether the crash occurred in Texas, Illinois, California, Georgia, or New York, the same FAAAA preemption analysis now applies.
Third, it incentivizes brokers to make safer hiring decisions, which over time should reduce crash exposure for everyone on the road.
Anyone considering a claim should consult with a lawyer experienced in trucking litigation as soon as possible, because key evidence — driver qualification files, electronic logging device data, dashcam footage, broker carrier-vetting records, and the load tender itself — can be lost, overwritten, or routinely destroyed within weeks of a crash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court make brokers strictly liable for crashes?
No. Montgomery does not impose strict liability. The Court held only that the FAAAA does not preempt state-law negligence claims. A plaintiff still has to prove duty, breach, causation, and damages under the law of the state where the crash occurred.
Does Montgomery apply to crashes that already happened?
Yes. The decision interprets a federal statute and applies retroactively to pending and future cases. Cases that were dismissed on FAAAA-preemption grounds within the applicable appeal window may be revived; new cases should be evaluated under the Montgomery rule.
Can I sue a broker if I was hit by a truck that was hauling a brokered load?
Potentially. You will need to show that the broker selected an unsafe carrier and that a reasonably careful broker would have refused to use that carrier. A qualified trucking lawyer can analyze the carrier's FMCSA data, the broker's vetting records, and the specific facts of the crash.
What is the difference between a broker, a motor carrier, and a freight forwarder?
A motor carrier owns the truck and employs the driver. A broker arranges transportation between shippers and motor carriers but does not take possession of the freight. A freight forwarder consolidates shipments and takes possession of the freight, but typically hires carriers to perform the line-haul. Liability rules can differ for each, although Montgomery's preemption analysis affects all three categories.
What is the "safety exception" in the FAAAA?
It is the provision at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A) that preserves the states' "safety regulatory authority . . . with respect to motor vehicles." Montgomery held that state common-law negligent-hiring claims against brokers fall within this exception.
Does Montgomery affect shipper liability for negligent selection of a carrier?
The decision does not directly address shipper liability, but its reasoning will be cited by both sides in shipper negligent-hiring cases. Many courts have already applied parallel duties to shippers; Montgomery removes one of the strongest preemption defenses brokers (and by extension shippers) have asserted.
Who wrote the majority opinion and who concurred?
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurrence joined by Justice Samuel Alito. The decision was unanimous in the judgment.
What is the case citation?
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 598 U.S. ___ (May 14, 2026). The case arose on certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
How does Montgomery interact with the earlier case Miller v. C.H. Robinson?
Miller v. C.H. Robinson, 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020), reached the same result as Montgomery. After Montgomery, Miller's reasoning is essentially adopted nationwide, and the contrary Seventh and Eleventh Circuit cases (Ye v. GlobalTranz and Aspen American Insurance v. Landstar) are abrogated.
Where can I read the opinion?
The opinion is available on the Supreme Court's website at supremecourt.gov (docket No. 24-1238). It is also published through standard reporters (U.S., S. Ct., L. Ed. 2d) and on Cornell's Legal Information Institute, SCOTUSblog, and Oyez.
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Trucking and brokerage cases involve fact-specific analysis under federal and state law. If you or a loved one has been injured in a crash involving a commercial truck, consult a qualified attorney promptly to preserve evidence and protect your rights.
Sources and Further Reading
- Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238 (U.S. May 14, 2026) — slip opinion, supremecourt.gov.
- Cornell Legal Information Institute, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC.
- SCOTUSblog, Case File: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC.
- Oyez, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC.
- Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020).
- Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023).
- Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023).
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008).
- 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) (FAAAA preemption clause and safety exception).
- 49 U.S.C. § 13906 (broker financial responsibility / surety bond).
- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Safety Measurement System (SMS) and SAFER.