Unsafe Carriers, Broker Responsibility, and Truck Crash Claims

Serious commercial truck crashes often lead to investigations focused on the driver and motor carrier. However, when a freight broker selected the carrier responsible for transporting the load, the broker’s role may also become an important part of the litigation. Questions can arise regarding what safety information was available, how the carrier was evaluated, and whether warning signs should have affected the selection decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC significantly affects this area of transportation litigation. The Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s motor-vehicle safety exception permits a state-law negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker arising from the selection of a motor carrier. The ruling does not impose automatic liability on brokers, but it provides a clearer path for certain safety-related claims to proceed.

Why Carrier Selection Matters After a Truck Crash

Freight brokers connect shippers with motor carriers that physically transport cargo. Although brokers generally do not operate the trucks themselves, their carrier-selection decisions may become relevant when a plaintiff alleges that an unsafe carrier should not have been selected.

Following a serious accident, litigation may examine questions such as:

• What safety information was available when the carrier was selected?
• Did the carrier have a history of crashes or significant safety problems?
• Were there concerns involving driver qualifications or hours-of-service compliance?
• Did available records identify vehicle inspection or maintenance deficiencies?
• Did the broker follow its own carrier qualification procedures?
• Were known safety concerns investigated before the load was assigned?

The answers can affect whether a plaintiff has a viable claim based on the broker’s own conduct.

The Supreme Court Changed the Preemption Analysis

For years, courts disagreed over whether the FAAAA preempted state-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers. Some courts concluded that such claims improperly regulated broker services and were therefore barred by federal law.

In Montgomery, the Supreme Court resolved an important part of that disagreement. The Court concluded that a negligent-hiring claim based on a broker’s selection of a motor carrier falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception when the claim concerns motor-vehicle safety.

This distinction matters because brokers can no longer assume that the FAAAA automatically prevents safety-related negligent-hiring claims from proceeding.

What Montgomery Does Not Mean

The Supreme Court did not establish that freight brokers are responsible for every crash involving a carrier they selected. Nor did the Court determine that a broker is negligent merely because the selected carrier later becomes involved in an accident.

Instead, plaintiffs must still establish the requirements of their underlying state-law claims. Depending on applicable law, disputed issues may include:

• Duty: Whether the broker owed the plaintiff a legally recognized duty under the circumstances.
• Breach: Whether the carrier-selection process failed to satisfy the applicable standard of care.
• Knowledge: What the broker knew or reasonably should have known about the carrier.
• Causation: Whether the alleged selection failure was sufficiently connected to the accident.
• Damages: Whether the plaintiff suffered legally recoverable losses.

These elements remain fact-specific and may be vigorously disputed during litigation.

What Can Make a Carrier an Alleged Safety Risk?

There is no single fact that automatically establishes that a carrier was unsafe or that selecting the carrier was negligent. Truck crash litigation may instead involve examination of multiple indicators and the circumstances existing at the time of selection.

Potentially relevant information may include:

• Available federal operating authority information.
• Safety ratings and related regulatory information.
• Driver qualification concerns.
• Vehicle inspection and maintenance history.
• Hours-of-service compliance issues.
• Crash history.
• Insurance information.
• Previous experiences between the broker and carrier.

The existence of negative information does not necessarily establish negligence. Litigation may focus on how significant the information was, whether it was reasonably available, and what a reasonable broker should have done under the circumstances.

Conditional Safety Ratings and Broker Liability

The underlying allegations in Montgomery included the carrier’s conditional safety rating. As a result, carrier safety information may receive increased attention in future broker liability disputes.

A safety rating can be important evidence, but its existence alone does not necessarily resolve liability. Courts may need to consider the complete factual record, including the information available when the carrier was selected and the relationship between any identified safety concern and the accident.

For brokers, this reinforces the importance of having a consistent process for evaluating carrier information rather than relying solely on a single data point.

Broker Screening Records May Become Critical Evidence

Negligent-selection litigation can place the broker’s internal procedures under significant scrutiny. Discovery may extend beyond basic evidence about the accident itself and into the process used to approve and assign the carrier.

Potential evidence may include:

• Carrier onboarding records.
• Qualification and approval documentation.
• Safety information reviewed before selection.
• Insurance and operating authority verification.
• Internal carrier-selection policies.
• Communications regarding safety concerns.
• Records of previous loads involving the carrier.
• Periodic carrier review documentation.

These materials may help establish what the broker knew, what procedures were followed, and whether any identified warning signs received appropriate consideration.

Internal Policies Can Help or Hurt a Broker’s Defense

Written carrier-selection procedures can demonstrate that a broker has established a structured approach to evaluating motor carriers. However, those same policies may become important evidence if employees routinely fail to follow them.

For example, litigation may compare the broker’s written qualification standards with what actually occurred when the carrier was approved. Significant unexplained departures from established procedures may become part of a plaintiff’s negligence theory.

Brokers should therefore consider whether their policies accurately reflect operational practices and whether personnel responsible for carrier selection understand and consistently apply them.

Causation Remains a Major Issue

Even when a plaintiff identifies problems with the carrier-selection process, the plaintiff generally must still establish the required connection between the alleged negligence and the accident.

For example, a carrier may have several historical compliance concerns, but litigation may examine whether those concerns bear a sufficient relationship to the conduct or condition that caused the particular crash.

This can make causation a central defense issue. Accident reconstruction evidence, driver records, vehicle maintenance information, regulatory records, and expert testimony may all become relevant depending on the circumstances.

What Freight Brokers Should Consider After Montgomery

The decision provides an important reason for brokers to reassess carrier-selection and documentation practices. Risk management measures may include:

• Maintaining written carrier qualification standards.
• Verifying required operating authority and insurance.
• Establishing procedures for reviewing available safety information.
• Creating escalation procedures when significant safety concerns appear.
• Documenting why carriers are approved or rejected when appropriate.
• Periodically reviewing previously approved carriers.
• Training employees responsible for carrier selection.
• Preserving relevant carrier qualification records.

These measures cannot eliminate the possibility of an accident or lawsuit, but consistent screening and documentation may strengthen a broker’s ability to explain its carrier-selection decisions.

What Truck Crash Plaintiffs May Investigate

For plaintiffs, a serious truck accident investigation may now extend beyond the motor carrier and driver when a broker participated in selecting the carrier.

Potential questions include whether the broker had information indicating an unreasonable safety risk, whether additional information should reasonably have been obtained, and whether a different carrier-selection decision could have prevented the accident.

However, the existence of a broker in the transportation chain does not automatically create a viable claim. The particular facts, applicable state negligence law, available safety information, and causal relationship between the selection decision and crash remain critical.

Did You Know?

The Supreme Court’s Montgomery decision did not hold that freight brokers are automatically liable for crashes caused by carriers they select. It held that the FAAAA’s safety exception allows qualifying state-law negligent-hiring claims involving motor-vehicle safety to proceed despite the federal statute’s general preemption provision.

Legal Guidance for Freight Broker and Truck Crash Litigation

Truck accident claims involving freight brokers can require analysis of carrier qualification procedures, federal transportation law, state negligence standards, safety records, causation, and complex commercial relationships. Putterman Law represents clients in transportation and logistics disputes and helps businesses evaluate broker liability claims, preserve critical evidence, and develop litigation strategies in cases involving commercial motor carriers.

Learn more about transportation and logistics legal services at Putterman Law

FAQs