The trucking industry will experience a shift in liability exposure following the recent United States Supreme
Court ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC. (No. 24-1238) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
unanimously (9-0) that federal law no longer shields freight brokers from state-law negligent–hiring lawsuits.
The landmark decision allows individuals injured in trucking accidents to now hold brokers accountable in
state court for hiring unsafe motor carriers.

The Supreme Court, while not addressing vicarious liability claims of brokers, took up the issue of whether
the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) bars state negligent‑selection claims against
freight brokers, or whether those claims fit within the statute’s “safety” carve‑out. The case stems from a
highway collision wherein Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when his parked tractor-trailer was
struck by an oncoming truck on an Illinois highway. The at-fault driver was employed by the motor carrier,
Caribe Transport, which had been hired by the freight broker, C.H. Robinson Worldwide. Montgomery
claimed that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Caribe Transport arguing the carrier had only a “conditional”
safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), with documented deficiencies
in driver qualification, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates. Montgomery argued that C.H.
Robinson knew or should have known that selecting Caribe Transport was reasonably likely to cause crashes
and injuries. Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson for damages, arguing the broker “negligently hired” Caribe
despite knowing, or being able to easily determine, the carrier’s poor safety record and history of violations.

A federal district court and the Seventh Circuit agreed with the broker, ruling that the Federal Aviation
Administration Act (FAAAA) precluded state-level negligent hiring claims. Historically, brokers have argued
that the FAAAA preempted (blocked) these types of state-law claims, effectively shielding brokers from
liability for dispatching potentially unqualified carriers. The FAAAA broadly protects motor carriers and
brokers from state laws related to “prices, routes, or services”. However, the law contains a “safety
exception” that preservers a state’s authority to regulate safety with respect to motor vehicles. The primary
question before the Supreme Court was whether “negligent hiring” against a broker fell under this
exception.

In the May 14, 2026 opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court ruled in favor of
Montgomery and held that state common-law duties, such as the duty to exercise reasonable care when
hiring contractors, qualify as to an exercise of a state’s motor vehicle safety authority. The Court reasoned
that because the entire purpose of a broker’s job is to put trucks on the road, screening for a carrier’s safety
directly concerns motor vehicles, rescuing the claim from federal preemption.
The unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Montgomery now allows individuals injured in crashes to sue freight
brokers for “negligent hiring” in state court, fundamentally altering broker liability and the broader trucking
industry.

The ruling is expected to impact the freight and trucking sectors in several major ways:

•  Increased Brokers Liability: Freight brokers, logistics companies, and third-party shippers can now be held
  financially accountable in state court for hiring unsafe or poor rated carriers;
• Shift in Vetting Practices: Brokers are expected to increase their compliance, oversight, and vetting
  practices when selecting which carriers are allowed to haul their freight. Freight brokers will no longer send
  their loads to the lowest bidder. To reduce legal exposure, they will scrutinize motor carriers’ safety
  histories, FMCSA safety ratings, crash records, hours-of-service compliance, and driver qualification
  practices before booking. Documentation of this internal vetting process will be critical;
• Increased Insurance & Litigation Costs: Brokers will now face increased exposure to large bodily injury and
  catastrophic loss claims. The cost of defending these lawsuits and securing higher liability insurance is
  expected to rise sharply, forcing some smaller brokers out of the market;
• Consolidation and Compliance Pressures: Because risk mitigation requires substantial administrative effort
  and capital, industry consolidation is expected, with larger, well-established brokerage firms absorbing
  smaller competitors;
• Shifts to Motor Carrier Focus: While direct litigation exposure for brokers increases, it may also refocus tort liability more tightly on the carriers and drivers themselves. Safe and compliant trucking companies will likely see higher demand, while carriers with poor safety scores may struggle to find loads.

Broker due diligence will now be in focus. The Montgomery ruling will intensify scrutiny of how brokers vet
and monitor carriers. FMCSA data pulls, inspection histories, conditional ratings, out of service rates, and
how red flags are handled in real time will all be things to consider when assessing a broker’s negligence.
The central question in every broker case going forward will be whether the broker exercised “reasonable
care” in selecting the carrier. Historically, many brokers relied on a carrier’s active FMCSA operating
authority, a basic safety rating check, and longstanding market relationships. That may have been sufficient
when preemption kept these cases out of court. That alone will no longer be a successful defense.

Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence provides the defense bar with a useful guide. He wrote that brokers who
“act reasonably” and “select reputable carriers” should be able to successfully defend these suits, indicating
that the Court did not intend to make brokers insurers of every load they arrange. Proximate causation will
be a viable defense. Defense counsel should focus early on developing both causation and vetting evidence
defenses.

Numerous post-Montgomery nationwide Plaintiff Bar litigation strategy seminars are already being
advertised. Expanded discovery and trial framing should be expected. Plaintiffs will push broader narratives
about safety programs and compliance culture with an increased discovery burden on brokers and shippers.
Florida defense teams should be ready to defend selection decisions and to challenge attempts to impose
duties beyond what the law recognizes, as consistent with Florida courts’ emphasis on foreseeability and
proximate cause in negligence.

The Montgomery decision highlights the importance of experienced defense counsel with a deep
understanding of freight brokerage operations and experience in the Florida trucking and transportation
industry. Kubicki Draper’s Trucking and Transportation Practice Group is ready for their clients with the
experience and industry knowledge to navigate these complex defense strategies.