TOP
It’s been said that U.S. Supreme Court opinions represent an ongoing societal conversation, reflecting dialogue among the courts, Congress, the federal government, and the states. So, it is with a mid-May decision that may expose freight brokers to state-law claims arising from accidents caused by the trucking companies they engage to transport freight. The case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, settles one legal question while introducing new uncertainty to the truck brokering industry.1
Let’s look at what this might mean.
Brokers serve as “middlemen” between shippers and trucking companies.2 Shippers hire brokers to choose trucking companies to transport their goods. Those trucking companies own or lease the trucks. The brokering business is vast, with roughly 28,000 brokers arranging transportation for more than 780,000 carriers.3 Together, those carriers move nearly 75% of the nation’s freight and are involved in many fatal crashes. In 2023 alone, 5,472 people died in accidents involving large trucks.4
As might be expected, trucking cases that involve death or catastrophic injury often originate in state court, with allegations against the trucking company of an unsafe vehicle or the negligent hiring of an at‑fault driver. Allegations against the trucking company are straightforward; however, what exposure, if any, extends to the broker who connected shipper and trucker?
Prior to Montgomery, brokers were generally considered insulated from these suits under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) of 1994, a federal law that addressed deregulating the trucking industry. Additionally, the FAAAA preempted (superseded) state regulations involving motor carriers, except for the “safety exception” which provides that preemption “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.”5 Over time, a number of suits that pre-dated Montgomery raised an unresolved question: Do negligent hiring or negligent selection claims against freight brokers fall within the “safety exception,” and therefore outside of federal preemption?
Montgomery contained a common truck-brokering fact pattern. Yosneil Varela-Mojena, driving a Mack Truck for Caribe Transport II, struck Shawn Montgomery’s tractor-trailer, which was parked on the side of the road. Injuries sustained by Montgomery included a leg amputation and other severe, permanent injuries. Brokering (coordinating) the shipment was co‑defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, LLC.
Montgomery sued Varela-Mojena, Caribe Transport II, and C.H. Robinson, alleging that the latter negligently hired Varela-Mojena and that it had prior knowledge from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that Caribe was deficient as to driver qualification, driver service hours, inspection, repair, and maintenance.6 Further, Montgomery asserted that C.H. Robinson knew or should have known that selecting Caribe to transport goods was reasonably likely to result in injury to others.7 Finally, Montgomery contended that even if the FAAAA would otherwise preempt his negligent hiring claim, the “safety exception” would save it.
In January 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal, finding that the FAAAA preempted Montgomery’s claims.8 Due to conflict in the Federal Circuits, the Supreme Court granted review this term and heard arguments in March.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Amy Comey Barrett sided with Montgomery. “Negligent-hiring claims impose a duty of reasonable care in employing a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm,” Justice Barrett wrote. “The preemption question thus boils down to whether negligent-hiring claims of the type Montgomery presses are claims ‘with respect to motor vehicles.’ We conclude that they are.”9
Montgomery will not automatically impose broker liability for trucking accidents. It is, however, likely to significantly change how brokers screen trucking partners to limit litigation risk. The decision also raises questions about the legal threshold of reasonable or ordinary care governing how a broker selects a motor carrier for a particular job.10 Industry observers also expect that new disputes will emerge as to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s role in motor carrier oversight.11
Whether the decision unleashes a torrent of broker-targeted litigation remains an open question, but it is not likely to pose an existential concern for the industry. Some observers suggest the increased scope of liability that Montgomery introduces can be effectively managed by brokers that invest in carrier vetting and selection, adopt internal controls for their operations, and manage exceptions as they arise in the transportation process.12 Others point to the concurring opinion written by Justice Brett Cavanaugh that said “brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies.”13
Uncertainty extends beyond the scope or quantity of future litigation to the truck-brokering industry itself. Industry observers suggest that enhanced and intensified carrier vetting will drive brokers to larger carriers and away from those viewed as higher risk.14
Determining a broker’s duty to exercise reasonable care in motor carrier selection will now be answered by state courts across the country, likely through vigorous litigation and possibly differing interpretations in all 50 states.15
For insurers, Montgomery carries significant ramifications as well. Since brokers can now be sued for accident liability, insurers should reassess underwriting assumptions, policy limits, and coverage towers. They should also take into consideration that brokers, if sued, will likely push for contractual indemnification from their chosen motor carriers, creating potential claims on those polices.16
If the Supreme Court’s Montgomery opinion does indeed reflect contemporary societal dialogue, the months ahead will reveal where the conversation goes next – and how voluble the conversation becomes. Whatever the outcome, the insurance industry will be part of it.
