Breaking: Major Update in Trucking Litigation

By: Noah B. Oliver

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238 (U.S. May 14, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision addressing whether negligent selection claims against transportation brokers are preempted by federal law. In a 9–0 decision, the Court held state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), explaining that the claims fall within the so-called safety exception [49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A)], which preserves states’ authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles.”

Now, the FAAAA’s broad preemption provision does not prevent freight brokers from being sued under state tort law. Therefore, plaintiffs can now bring claims against freight brokers under the theory that the broker knew or should have known the motor carrier it selected was unsafe.

Justice Barrett, writing the opinion of the Court, structured the case as a straightforward statutory interpretation question. The FAAAA broadly preempts state laws “related to” a broker’s prices, routes, or services. But it contains an exception, stating the statute “Shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” The opinion assumes (without definitively deciding) that the negligent‑hiring claim may fall within the preemption clause and instead focuses on whether the safety exception saves it.

Justice Barrett explained that “common-law duties and standards of care form part of a state’s authority to regulate safety.” And a claim that a broker failed to exercise reasonable care when arranging transportation with a motor carrier, to transport goods via truck, is “with respect to motor vehicles.” Thus, the Court concluded that such claims fall within the so-called safety exception. The Court rejected the argument that under this interpretation, the exception would effectively swallow the rule, because the safety exception only saves safety-related claims, not all state laws affecting brokers. Economic regulations unrelated to safety (e.g., pricing rules) remain preempted.

Justice Barrett keeps the opinion intentionally narrow. It is important to note that the Court does not impose liability but only allows the claim to proceed. Plaintiffs must still prove ordinary negligence elements (duty, breach, causation) against a freight broker.

Justice Kavanaugh, writing a concurring opinion, acknowledged the case was “closer than the Court’s opinion perhaps might suggest.” Justice Kavanaugh also explained that “the Court’s decision yesterday should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents,” only that FAAAA no longer prevents those claims. Justice Kavanaugh also flagged potential downstream effects, including increased litigation and liability exposure, which could raise costs for brokers and lead to higher prices in the freight system. He also implicitly acknowledges industry concerns about a patchwork of state standards, though he ultimately accepts that result under the statute. Finally, Justice Kavanaugh underscores that the ruling should not be overread. It does not mean brokers will “routinely” be liable after accidents. Rather, the decision simply allows plaintiffs to bring claims under state law, subject to ordinary legal hurdles.

The decision applies to pending cases, as well as future cases. Additionally, previously dismissed claims may be revived, appeals may reverse prior rulings that relied on preemption, and new claims may be added to existing cases.

From a practical standpoint, this means that plaintiffs will routinely include freight brokers in lawsuits. Freight brokers are no longer just “middlemen” legally. With FAAAA preemption unavailable, freight brokers must now defend each claim on its merits. Freight brokers can expect to engage in all aspects of litigation, including written discovery, document production, and depositions.

The focus will be on the freight brokers’ motor carrier selection procedures, internal communications regarding selection, hiring practices, and all vetting procedures. Be prepared for plaintiffs’ counsel to request and thoroughly review through each and every document, report, spreadsheet, and email for any evidence that a freight broker chose a cheaper broker over a safer broker. We will note that in most jurisdictions, the freight broker will have the opportunity to address the claim at the summary judgment stage, which could bring a successful, pre-trial end to claim, especially for freight brokers who implement strong vetting processes.

In the wake of the decision, we recommend freight brokers formalize a defensible carrier selection policy. Upgrade due diligence beyond “basic compliance.” Minimum checks are no longer enough. This is important because Plaintiffs will argue you “should have known” about safety risks—especially from publicly-available data.

Freight brokers should also document everything. Implement time‑stamped records of each carrier review. It is also time to review contracts and risk allocation, insurance coverage, staff training on carrier selection, and carrier exception approval procedures where the carrier does not meet all criteria.

The bottom line is freight brokers should assume they will be sued in serious crashes. Freight brokers should focus on showing that your vetting meets industry standards. Freight brokers are legally responsible for whom they put on the road, so treat carrier selection like a regulated safety function, not a transactional step. This will best position freight brokers to manage rising litigation exposure and rising costs.

For information on the Transportation Law Group, contact Edward M. Vavro, Jr. at 412-392-5445 or evavro@dmclaw.com.