The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC represents an important development in truck accident litigation involving freight brokers. The Court unanimously held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s safety exception permits state-law negligent-hiring claims against brokers arising from their selection of motor carriers.
The ruling does not make freight brokers automatically liable whenever a carrier is involved in an accident. Instead, it removes a significant federal preemption defense that had prevented certain negligent-hiring claims from moving forward. As a result, truck accident litigation may now involve closer examination of not only the driver and motor carrier, but also the broker’s role in selecting the carrier.
What Happened in Montgomery?
The case arose after truck driver Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries when his tractor-trailer, which was stopped along an Illinois roadway, was struck by a truck operated for Caribe Transport II, LLC. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a transportation broker, had coordinated the shipment.
Montgomery alleged that the broker negligently selected Caribe Transport and its driver. His allegations focused in part on the carrier’s conditional safety rating and reported deficiencies involving driver qualifications, hours of service, inspection and maintenance practices, and crash history.
The lower courts concluded that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, commonly known as the FAAAA, preempted Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim against the broker. The Supreme Court disagreed and allowed the claim to proceed under the statute’s motor-vehicle safety exception.
The FAAAA Safety Exception Takes Center Stage
The FAAAA generally restricts states from enforcing laws related to the prices, routes, or services of transportation brokers and other covered entities. However, Congress included an exception preserving state safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles.
In Montgomery, the Supreme Court concluded that a negligent-hiring claim involving the selection of a motor carrier falls within that safety exception. This means a freight broker cannot necessarily obtain dismissal of such a claim simply by arguing that federal transportation law preempts it.
The distinction is significant because federal preemption had previously served as a powerful threshold defense in jurisdictions that treated these claims as barred.
Broker Conduct May Receive Greater Scrutiny
One of the most important practical effects of Montgomery is that litigation may extend further into the carrier-selection process.
After a serious truck crash, plaintiffs may seek information concerning:
- Carrier Safety Ratings: What safety rating existed when the carrier was selected.
- Crash History: Whether previous crashes or safety incidents were known or reasonably discoverable.
- Driver and Vehicle Issues: Available information concerning driver qualifications, inspections, maintenance, or hours-of-service compliance.
- Broker Screening Policies: The procedures the broker used to approve motor carriers.
- Internal Communications: Communications concerning carrier approval or identified safety concerns.
- Prior Relationship: Whether previous experience with the carrier revealed potential warning signs.
These records may become important in determining what the broker knew or reasonably should have known when making the carrier-selection decision.
Montgomery Does Not Establish Automatic Broker Liability
The Supreme Court’s ruling concerns whether negligent-hiring claims may proceed despite the FAAAA’s preemption provision. It does not establish that C.H. Robinson—or freight brokers generally—are automatically negligent when a selected carrier causes an accident.
A plaintiff must still establish the elements required by applicable law. Depending on the jurisdiction and claim, those issues may include:
- Whether the broker owed a relevant duty of care.
- Whether the broker breached that duty when selecting the carrier.
- Whether the carrier presented safety concerns that the broker knew or reasonably should have discovered.
- Whether the alleged negligent selection was legally connected to the accident.
- Whether the plaintiff suffered recoverable damages.
These factual and legal questions can remain heavily contested even after the federal preemption issue has been resolved.
How Discovery May Change After Montgomery
Broker records may become increasingly important during discovery in truck accident litigation. Plaintiffs may request documents showing how the carrier was selected, what safety information was available, and whether the broker followed its own qualification procedures.
Relevant evidence may include:
- Carrier onboarding and qualification files.
- Safety and compliance reports.
- Insurance and operating authority verification.
- Internal carrier approval standards.
- Communications between brokers, carriers, and shippers.
- Records documenting periodic carrier reviews.
For brokers, maintaining consistent and accurate records may therefore become increasingly important when defending negligent-selection allegations.
What the Decision Means for Freight Brokers
Freight brokers should consider whether their carrier-selection procedures adequately address safety information and whether those procedures are consistently followed.
Risk management measures may include:
- Maintaining written carrier qualification standards.
- Reviewing available safety information before assigning loads.
- Establishing procedures for carriers with significant safety concerns.
- Verifying operating authority and required insurance.
- Documenting carrier-selection decisions.
- Periodically reviewing approved carriers for material changes.
A written policy alone may provide limited protection if actual practices do not follow it. Consistency between written procedures and day-to-day carrier selection can become particularly important in litigation.
What Montgomery Means for Truck Accident Plaintiffs
For injured parties, Montgomery may expand the scope of potential investigation after certain truck crashes. A plaintiff may examine whether a broker’s selection of the carrier contributed to the circumstances that resulted in the accident rather than limiting the case to the driver’s conduct and the carrier’s direct responsibility.
However, the decision should not be interpreted as creating a claim against the broker in every commercial vehicle accident. The existence and viability of a negligent-hiring claim will depend on the applicable state law and the evidence concerning the broker’s conduct.
What Montgomery Does Not Decide
The decision resolves an important federal preemption question, but it does not answer every issue surrounding freight broker liability.
Future cases may continue to address questions such as what constitutes reasonable carrier screening, which safety indicators should influence a carrier-selection decision, how causation should be established, and when available information should have placed a broker on notice of an unreasonable safety risk.
These issues are likely to become significant battlegrounds as courts apply Montgomery to different factual situations.
Did You Know?
The Supreme Court’s decision allows broker negligent-hiring claims to survive the FAAAA preemption defense, but plaintiffs must still prove the underlying negligence claim. Montgomery opens the courthouse door; it does not determine who ultimately wins the case.
Preparing for the New Truck Litigation Landscape
Montgomery changes an important part of the litigation framework surrounding freight broker liability. Brokers may face greater scrutiny of carrier-selection practices, while plaintiffs have a clearer path to pursue qualifying state-law negligent-hiring claims. Putterman Law represents businesses involved in transportation, logistics, broker liability, and complex commercial disputes. Our attorneys help clients evaluate evolving legal risks and develop strategies for transportation-related litigation.
Learn more about transportation and logistics legal services at Putterman Law
FAQs
What did the Supreme Court decide in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport?
The Supreme Court held that the FAAAA’s motor-vehicle safety exception permits a state-law negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker involving the broker’s selection of a motor carrier.
Does Montgomery make freight brokers automatically liable for truck accidents?
No. The ruling addresses federal preemption. Plaintiffs must still establish the required elements of their negligent-hiring or negligent-selection claims under applicable law.
Can plaintiffs now investigate a broker’s carrier-selection process?
Carrier qualification procedures, safety information, internal policies, communications, and related records may become relevant when a plaintiff alleges that a broker negligently selected an unsafe carrier.
Why is a carrier’s safety record important after Montgomery?
Safety information may help establish what the broker knew or reasonably should have known when selecting a carrier. Its significance will depend on the circumstances and applicable law.
How can freight brokers reduce litigation risk after Montgomery?
Brokers can review carrier qualification policies, consistently evaluate available safety information, document selection decisions, monitor approved carriers, and periodically review their risk management procedures.
