BREAKING NEWS: US SUPREME COURT Unanimously rejects Federal Preemption of Negligence Selection Claims against Freight Brokers

On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. that materially affects how catastrophic trucking cases will be evaluated, defended, and insured. For freight brokers, motor carriers, and the insurers that support them, the opinion resolves a long‑standing split among the federal courts and confirms that federal deregulation was never intended to provide blanket immunity from traditional state‑law safety claims.

The case arose from a severe tractor‑trailer collision in Illinois. Shawn Montgomery, the driver of a disabled tractor‑trailer stopped along the shoulder, suffered devastating injuries—including the amputation of his leg—when he was struck by a truck operated by Caribe Transport II, LLC. The load had been arranged by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., acting as a freight broker. In addition to suing the driver and motor carrier, Montgomery alleged that the broker negligently selected Caribe Transport despite known safety concerns, including a “conditional” FMCSA safety rating and multiple regulatory deficiencies at the time the shipment was tendered.

C.H. Robinson advanced a defense that had gained considerable traction in recent years: federal preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The statute broadly prohibits states from enforcing laws or common‑law claims related to a broker’s prices, routes, or services. Accepting that argument, both the district court and the Seventh Circuit concluded that negligent selection claims against brokers were preempted. The Supreme Court disagreed.

In reversing, the Court emphasized a portion of the statute often minimized in preemption disputes. While the FAAAA was enacted to deregulate economic aspects of the transportation industry, Congress expressly preserved state authority over safety “with respect to motor vehicles.” Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett explained that traditional state tort law—including negligent hiring principles—has long operated as a means of regulating safety. A claim requiring reasonable care in selecting a motor carrier, the Court held, directly relates to the safety of the trucks and drivers placed on public highways as a result of that decision.

The Court rejected the argument that a broker’s conduct is too attenuated from roadway safety to fall within the statute’s safety exception. Although brokers do not own trucks or employ drivers, their role in selecting which carriers will haul freight determines which vehicles and drivers enter interstate commerce. Subjecting that conduct to ordinary negligence principles, the Court concluded, falls squarely within the states’ retained authority over motor vehicle safety.

Equally important is what the decision did not do. The Court did not impose strict liability on brokers, nor did it transform them into guarantors of carrier performance. It assumed—without deciding—that negligent selection claims might otherwise fall within the FAAAA’s broad preemption clause, but held that such claims survive where they are grounded in traditional safety‑based negligence law. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito, underscores this point. Describing the issue as a close one, he emphasized that brokers remain protected by ordinary tort requirements, including proof of duty, breach, causation, and proximate cause. Brokers that engage in reasonable and well‑documented carrier vetting, he noted, retain substantial defenses on the merits.

From a practical standpoint, the decision’s most immediate impact will be felt in litigation strategy and claims handling. Motions to dismiss based solely on FAAAA preemption are now far less likely to succeed, particularly in cases involving serious injury or death. As a result, broker conduct will more frequently remain in the case long enough for fact‑driven scrutiny of carrier selection practices.

For freight brokers, the opinion reinforces the importance of disciplined, consistent, and well‑documented carrier selection procedures. FMCSA registration alone may not be sufficient where safety ratings, out‑of‑service histories, or crash data indicate elevated risk. Going forward, the central inquiry will be whether the broker’s selection process was reasonable under the circumstances, rather than whether the claim can be resolved at the pleading stage.

Motor carriers should likewise anticipate closer examination of their safety profiles and onboarding relationships with brokers, particularly in multi‑defendant cases where plaintiffs seek to frame liability narratives around systemic safety issues instead of isolated driver error.

For insurers and claims professionals, Montgomery alters early exposure analysis, reserving, and settlement strategy. Broker E&O and contingent liability claims may involve greater defense costs and severity potential even where ultimate liability is uncertain. Claims evaluations will increasingly require careful consideration of broker conduct alongside driver and carrier negligence, as well as scrutiny of carrier vetting records and safety data.

The decision does not open the door to automatic broker liability. It does, however, reaffirm that federal economic deregulation was never meant to displace longstanding state police powers over highway safety. In that sense, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport returns negligent selection claims to their traditional, fact‑intensive home: ordinary negligence law.

For the commercial transportation industry and the insurers that support it, the takeaway is a familiar one. Economic deregulation does not eliminate the obligation to act reasonably where public safety is concerned, and the ability to demonstrate that reasonableness has become more important than ever.

Accordingly, Zarwin Baums’s Insurance Defense team will continue to adapt its defense strategy to continue to limit the exposure to our freight broker clients.  Over the years, Zarwin Baum has defended many freight brokers successfully and will continue to do so as the Montgomery decision  reshapes the landscape of claims against freight brokers.