View All ArticlesSupreme Court Rules Unanimously That Freight Brokers Can Face Negligent Hiring Lawsuits Under State Law
A landmark May 2026 decision reshapes the legal landscape for freight brokers, carriers, and the attorneys who represent them.
Article written by: Michele H. Dinterman, Esq. | Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP
On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling with sweeping implications for the commercial trucking industry. In Montgomery County v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, the Court held that freight brokers who select motor carriers to transport goods can be sued under state negligence laws — closing the door on a federal preemption defense that brokers had long relied upon to escape liability.
The opinion was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, with Justice Kavanaugh filing a concurrence agreeing that the relevant federal statute does not shield brokers from state court suits when they negligently arrange transportation using an unsafe carrier.
Who Are Freight Brokers, and Why Does This Matter?
To understand the significance of this ruling, it helps to understand the role brokers play in the supply chain. When companies need to move freight, they often turn to brokers rather than directly contracting with a trucking company. Brokers serve as intermediaries — identifying and engaging motor carriers on behalf of shippers. As Justice Barrett described them in the opinion, brokers are the transportation industry's matchmakers. By some estimates, brokers are involved in arranging roughly one-third of all freight moved across the United States.
Before this ruling, brokers who were named as defendants in accident-related lawsuits had a powerful tool at their disposal: removal to federal court and a motion to dismiss based on federal preemption. Now, that tool has been significantly curtailed.
The Law at the Center of the Case: The FAAAA
The legal question before the Court centered on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, commonly known as the FAAAA. Congress enacted this law to address concerns that the existing patchwork of state trucking regulations was stifling competition in the industry. The FAAAA broadly preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier or broker with respect to the transportation of property." One year after the initial enactment, Congress extended that preemption to cover brokers as well.
However, the FAAAA includes an important carve-out: the preemption provision does not apply to the "safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles." This safety exception became the crux of the Montgomery v. Caribe litigation.
Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, federal circuit courts were split on whether negligent hiring claims against brokers fell within this safety exception. Some courts sided with brokers and dismissed such claims as preempted; others allowed them to proceed. The Supreme Court's decision resolves that circuit split — definitively and unanimously — for all 50 states and U.S. territories.
What the Court Decided
The Court held that a negligent hiring or negligent selection claim against a broker — one alleging the broker failed to exercise reasonable care in choosing a motor carrier — qualifies as a state safety regulation under the FAAAA's exception. Because the claim relates to safety in the transportation of goods, it is not preempted by federal law.
The practical effect is significant. Brokers can no longer automatically seek dismissal of state court bodily injury lawsuits by invoking the FAAAA's preemption clause when the underlying claim involves safety. Plaintiffs' attorneys can now pursue freight brokers in state court as traditional defendants alongside the motor carrier and the driver involved in an accident.
Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence underscored the point plainly: the FAAAA does not bar state court lawsuits against brokers who negligently arrange truck transportation with an unsafe carrier.
What the Ruling Does NOT Cover
It is equally important to understand the limits of this decision. The Court was careful to note that the safety exception saves only a defined category of claims — those that genuinely concern motor vehicle safety. State law claims against brokers involving pricing disputes, routing decisions, cargo loss or damage, freight delays, or similar service-related issues should remain preempted under the FAAAA.
Defense attorneys should anticipate that plaintiffs will attempt to characterize a wide range of claims as "safety-related" to avoid preemption. For example, some plaintiffs' lawyers may argue that a particular delivery route was inherently unsafe. Defense counsel will need to press courts, particularly at the motion-to-dismiss and summary-judgment stages, to distinguish genuine safety claims from repackaged service or logistics disputes.
Immediate Implications for Freight Brokers
The consequences for the brokerage industry are immediate and practical.
Expect more lawsuits. With the preemption defense largely off the table in safety-related cases, plaintiffs' lawyers will routinely add freight brokers as defendants in serious-injury trucking litigation. Cases that were previously dismissed or removed to federal court and resolved early may now proceed through full state court litigation, including discovery and trial.
Carrier vetting is now a litigation issue. Juries will be asked to evaluate how a broker selected a particular carrier — whether the broker reviewed the carrier's safety rating, accident history, record of out-of-service violations, licensing status, and prior litigation. What a broker knew or should have known about a carrier's safety profile will be central to these cases.
The standard is negligence, not strict liability. Brokers are not automatically liable simply because an accident occurred. The question is whether the broker acted with ordinary care in selecting the motor carrier. A broker that maintains thorough vetting records and follows reasonable due diligence procedures will be in a far better position at trial than one that cannot document its selection process.
Finger-pointing among defendants. Adding brokers to the defendant pool creates the potential for disputes among defendants over comparative responsibility. While brokers and carriers may sometimes align their defense strategies, there will be situations where their interests diverge — and plaintiffs benefit when defendants point fingers at each other.
What Brokers Should Do Now
If you operate as a freight broker, this ruling is a call to action on risk management:
- Establish written carrier vetting protocols. Document the criteria you use to evaluate and select carriers. A well-documented process demonstrates that you took reasonable care, which is exactly what the negligence standard requires.
- Review the carrier's safety data. Check safety ratings, accident history, out-of-service violation records, and licensing status before engagement — and keep records of that review.
- Carry adequate liability insurance. Given the expanding litigation exposure, brokers should ensure their coverage reflects the new risk environment.
- Work with defense counsel early. In the event of a claim, brokers with organized carrier-selection files will give their attorneys the tools needed to mount an effective defense.
A New Era for Trucking Litigation
The Supreme Court's ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe marks a turning point in how commercial trucking accidents are litigated. For decades, freight brokers occupied a relatively protected position, shielded from state court liability by a broad reading of the FAAAA. That protection has now been significantly narrowed.
The decision affects not just brokers and their insurers, but the entire ecosystem of parties involved in freight transportation — shippers, carriers, insurers, and the plaintiffs who are injured in accidents involving commercial vehicles. For the legal community, it opens a new front in trucking litigation that will take years to fully develop through state and federal court decisions interpreting the limits of the Court's holding.
The bottom line: freight brokers can no longer treat federal preemption as a shield in safety-related cases.
© 2026 Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP
For further information regarding the issues described above, please contact:
Michele H. Dinterman, Esq. | Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP
111 South Calvert Street, Suite 1400 | Baltimore, MD 21202 | 410-783-6300 | nilesbarton.com
This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For questions about a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.