On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that significantly reshapes the liability landscape for…
On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that significantly reshapes the liability landscape for freight brokers operating across the nation. The Court held that state-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett concluded that the FAAAA's safety exception preserves these claims, allowing injured parties to pursue brokers under state tort law for the negligent selection of motor carriers. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito.
For years, freight brokers have relied on federal preemption as a primary defense against negligent-hiring claims arising from accidents involving motor carriers they have engaged. The Montgomery decision effectively closes that door. By confirming that the safety exception preserves such claims, the Court has opened brokers throughout the trucking industry to expanded exposure under state law. We anticipate a corresponding increase in litigation, particularly in cases involving serious accidents where plaintiffs can argue that a broker failed to adequately vet a carrier's safety record before hiring.
The implications extend well beyond the courtroom. Freight brokers should treat this ruling as a clear signal to revisit their carrier due diligence protocols without delay. Robust vetting procedures, including verification of safety ratings, inspection history, insurance coverage, and operating authority, should be formalized and consistently applied. Equally important is the documentation of those procedures, which can serve as critical evidence of reasonable care in any subsequent litigation.
Beyond operational practices, brokers should also reassess their contractual frameworks. Indemnification provisions with motor carriers should be reviewed for enforceability and adequacy, and insurance arrangements should be examined to confirm that coverage limits and policy language address the heightened exposure created by the ruling. Risk management strategies, including reserves and claims-handling protocols, may likewise warrant recalibration in light of the expanded liability environment.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Clients facing questions about how the Montgomery decision may affect their operations, contracts, or insurance arrangements should consult with counsel for guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.