10 Lessons Motor Carriers Can Learn From Brokers’ Stricter Carrier Vetting in 2026

For years, many freight brokers relied on a short carrier-qualification checklist: active operating authority, sufficient insurance and no Unsatisfactory safety rating.

That is no longer enough.

In May 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt certain state negligent-selection claims against freight brokers. The Court concluded that claims alleging a broker failed to use reasonable care when selecting a motor carrier can fall within the law’s motor-vehicle safety exception.

Two months later, a Texas jury returned a $604 million verdict against C.H. Robinson, motor carrier Lupus Superior and its driver following a fatal 2021 crash. C.H. Robinson was assigned direct fault for negligent carrier selection and was also found vicariously liable under a “borrowed employee” theory. The company has indicated that it intends to appeal.

These cases do not create one federally mandated carrier-vetting checklist. They do, however, make one question far more important:

What did the broker know, or what should it reasonably have known, about the motor carrier before tendering the load?

As brokers strengthen their carrier-selection standards, motor carriers need to understand what is being reviewed and what evidence they must be ready to provide. Here are 10 lessons carriers can learn from the stricter vetting environment of 2026 and beyond.

1. A Conditional Safety Rating May Become a Commercial Disqualifier

FMCSA may assign a motor carrier one of four safety-rating statuses:

• Satisfactory: The carrier has adequate and functioning safety-management controls.
• Conditional: The carrier does not have adequate safety-management controls to ensure compliance with the federal safety fitness standard.
• Unsatisfactory: The carrier’s inadequate controls have resulted in conditions meeting FMCSA’s Unsatisfactory criteria.
• Unrated: FMCSA has not assigned the carrier a safety rating.

Formal ratings are generally issued after a rated investigation or compliance review. A Conditional rating does not necessarily shut down a general freight carrier’s operating authority, but it tells the public that FMCSA found inadequate safety-management controls.

That can make the carrier extremely difficult for a broker to approve. After a serious crash, a broker may have to explain why it knowingly selected a carrier with a Conditional rating when other carriers were available.

Correcting the underlying violations does not automatically remove the designation. Under 49 CFR §385.17, the carrier must submit a written request for a rating change supported by evidence that it corrected the deficiencies and now meets the federal safety fitness standard.

What carriers should do: Treat a Conditional rating as an urgent commercial problem. Correct the root causes, document the new controls, audit their effectiveness and formally petition FMCSA for an upgrade. This is what CNS specializes in. Remember, do not assume that improved roadside results alone will change the public rating.

2. “Unrated” Does Not Mean “Approved as Safe”

Most carriers have never undergone the type of FMCSA investigation that produces a formal safety rating. Therefore, an unrated carrier is not unusual.

However, “unrated” does not mean FMCSA examined the company and found it safe. It simply means the agency has not assigned a rating.

Good brokers know that automatically rejecting every unrated carrier would eliminate much of the available carrier market. They also know that approving every unrated carrier without examining its underlying record would be difficult to defend.

That is why inspection history, crashes, out-of-service rates, authority history, insurance, safety controls and internal fleet data have become more important.

What carriers should do: Never present an unrated status as proof of safety. Be prepared to show the processes and results that demonstrate how your company actually manages drivers, vehicles and crash risk.

3. Active Authority and Insurance Are Only the Beginning

Operating authority and required insurance remain essential, but they are minimum qualifications and not a complete safety review.

An initial broker review may verify:

• Legal and DBA names
• USDOT and MC numbers
• Active for-hire operating authority
• Required insurance filings
• Safety-rating status
• Power units and driver count
• MCS-150 update date and reported mileage
• Cargo classifications
• Out-of-service rates
• Inspection and crash history
• Authority revocations or reinstatements
• Whether company contact information matches the carrier presenting itself

Identity verification has also become part of risk management. FMCSA recommends confirming carrier phone numbers through SAFER, independently validating documents and comparing the truck and trailer arriving at pickup with the company contracted for the load. FMCSA provides carrier fraud and identity-theft precautions.

What carriers should do: Keep SAFER, MCS-150, insurance and contact information accurate and consistent. Make it easy for brokers to verify your identity, authority, equipment and insurance without finding unexplained differences.

4. Brokers Want the Details Behind the Public FMCSA Snapshot

The public SAFER snapshot is useful, but it often does not provide enough detail to explain why a carrier’s numbers look the way they do.

Stronger vetting programs may request the carrier’s complete, current SMS profile or a detailed third-party report, such as a CAB report. The reviewer may examine individual inspections, violations, crashes, enforcement history and changes over time.

The goal is not simply to collect a larger report. It is to understand the events behind the summary numbers. CNS can help you pull a CAB report and analyze the data through our PSM programs.

A carrier should be ready to explain:

• Significant or recurring violations
• Elevated BASIC performance
• Driver or vehicle out-of-service events
• Recent crashes
• Acute or Critical Violations
• Enforcement actions
• Corrective actions and follow-up results

What carriers should do: Review your complete safety record before a broker does. Prepare concise explanations supported by maintenance records, training documents, internal investigations, coaching records and subsequent performance.

5. An Out-of-Service Percentage Never Tells the Whole Story

Out-of-service rates are easy to compare with national averages, which makes them attractive screening metrics. But a percentage without context can be misleading, especially for a small carrier with few inspections.

For example, suppose a carrier has two vehicle inspections and one results in an out-of-service order. The carrier will display a 50% vehicle out-of-service rate. That percentage looks severe, but a responsible reviewer still needs to ask:

• What caused the out-of-service order?
• Was it an isolated condition or part of a recurring pattern?
• How recently did it occur?
• What corrective action followed?
• Were later inspections clean?
• Does the maintenance record support the carrier’s explanation?

A tire placed out of service after a recent puncture and loss of pressure creates a different risk profile from repeated brake-system defects across several vehicles. Both matter, but recurring brake defects may indicate a larger failure involving preventive maintenance, driver inspections or repair controls.

FMCSA’s June 2026 SMS methodology uses data-sufficiency tests because small amounts of data may not produce meaningful comparisons. The system generally considers 24 months of applicable inspection data and gives more weight to recent events. Review FMCSA’s current SMS methodology.

What carriers should do: Know the numerator, denominator and specific violations behind your rates. Provide the broker with the context and documentation needed to distinguish an isolated event from a systemic problem.

6. Patterns Matter More Than One Headline Number

Don’t let clickbait ruin your business. FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System was designed to help prioritize carriers for possible agency intervention. It was not designed as a universal carrier-hiring standard.

SMS information can still reveal meaningful warning signs. The mistake is treating one percentile, alert or out-of-service rate as conclusive proof that a carrier is safe or unsafe.

Good reviewers look for patterns:

1. Underlying violations: What behavior or equipment condition produced the result?
2. Recurrence: Does the same issue appear across multiple inspections, drivers or vehicles?
3. Recency: Is the problem new, improving or continuing?
4. Exposure: How many vehicles, drivers, miles and inspections produced the data?
5. Corrective action: What did the carrier change?
6. Verification: Is there evidence that the change was implemented?
7. Follow-through: Did later inspections and internal results show improvement?

A strong explanation identifies the root cause, immediate correction, long-term prevention measure, responsible manager and proof that the solution remains in place.

What carriers should do: Stop viewing each violation as an isolated citation. Group related events, identify trends and document how management responded to the pattern.

7. Crash Involvement Requires Context and Evidence

FMCSA crash data identifies reportable crash involvement, but involvement does not automatically establish fault or preventability.

A broker may examine:

• Crash frequency relative to fleet size and mileage
• Fatality, injury and tow-away severity
• Date and type of each crash
• Whether similar crashes are recurring
• Police reports and internal investigation findings
• Video or telematics evidence
• Driver coaching, discipline or retraining
• Operational changes made after the event
• Whether corrective actions were completed
• Any FMCSA preventability determinations

Carriers should use DataQs when federal or state safety information is incomplete or incorrect. For eligible crashes, carriers may also submit evidence through FMCSA’s Crash Preventability Determination Program.

A “Reviewed-Not Preventable” determination does not erase the crash or decide legal liability, but it can provide valuable context when the crash appears in the carrier’s SMS history.

What carriers should do: Investigate every serious crash promptly and retain the evidence. Document preventability, contributing factors, driver response and corrective action. File DataQs or preventability requests while records and video are still available.

8. Safety Technology Is Only as Strong as Its Settings

Brokers and insurers increasingly ask what accident-prevention equipment and driver-monitoring technology a carrier uses. This may include:

• Speed limiters
• Forward-facing or driver-facing cameras
• Following-distance alerts
• Forward-collision warnings
• Automatic emergency braking
• Lane-departure warnings
• Electronic stability control
• In-cab driver alerts
• Speeding, hard-braking and rapid-acceleration monitoring
• Fatigue or distraction detection

Possessing the technology is not enough. Reviewers want to know whether it is activated, appropriately configured, monitored and connected to a functioning coaching process.

A fleet could report an excellent safety score while configuring its system to flag tailgating only after an extremely short following distance continues for several minutes. Another fleet might count speeding only when a driver exceeds the limit by 20 mph. Both configurations could hide meaningful risk.

A stronger review considers:

• The fleet’s score for the previous 12 months
• Behaviors included in the score
• Thresholds for each behavior
• Duration or minimum-speed requirements
• Events relative to miles driven
• Percentage of events reviewed and coached
• Time between an event and coaching
• Repeat events after coaching
• Overdue or unresolved events
• Management review of system settings

Vendor scores are not standardized. A score of 90 from one platform may measure something entirely different from a 90 on another.

What carriers should do: Be ready to provide the score, the settings behind it and evidence showing that alerts lead to timely coaching and measurable improvement.

9. Written Policies Are Not Proof That Safety Controls Work

A policy manual shows that a company wrote down its expectations. It does not prove that managers and drivers consistently follow them.

Good brokers and insurers increasingly look for evidence of functioning controls in areas such as:

• Driver qualification and onboarding
• Motor vehicle record monitoring
• Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse compliance
• Medical-card and licensing controls
• Hours-of-service and ELD monitoring
• Unassigned-drive-time management
• Preventive maintenance
• Driver vehicle inspection reports
• Annual and periodic inspections
• Defect reporting and repairs
• Cargo securement
• New-driver and annual training
• Corrective-action training
• Crash investigation
• Driver coaching and discipline
• Management review of safety trends

Training records, completed maintenance files, closed coaching events, internal audit findings and documented follow-up provide stronger evidence than a generic policy alone.

Insurance and loss history can add another layer. A carrier with no current SMS alerts may still have a concerning claims trend, while a carrier with a percentage elevated by limited inspection data may have years of favorable loss experience and strong controls.

What carriers should do: Test whether your procedures are actually being followed. Conduct internal audits, document identified failures and retain evidence that corrective actions were completed.

10. Carrier Vetting Is Becoming Continuous, Not One-Time

Carrier approval should not be treated as permanent. Mature vetting programs may include:

• Initial qualification: A complete review before approval.
• Tender-time verification: Confirmation that authority and required insurance remain active.
• Ongoing monitoring: Alerts for changes in authority, insurance, safety rating, inspection performance or company identity.
• Annual review: Updated SMS or CAB reports, loss information, technology settings, safety scores and supporting records.
• Trigger-based review: Reassessment after a serious crash, Conditional rating, authority revocation, insurance cancellation, major safety alert or recurring out-of-service pattern.

Some insurers also request detailed safety documents during annual renewal. Carriers should expect brokers, shippers and insurers to compare current performance with information previously provided.

If a serious crash occurs, a reviewer may request the complete event file and examine whether the circumstances and the carrier’s response are consistent with the safety processes it previously claimed to have.

What carriers should do: Build an annual carrier safety packet and update it throughout the year. Do not wait until a broker, shipper or insurance underwriter asks for documentation.

What Should Be Included in a Carrier Safety Packet?

A broker-ready safety packet may include:

• Current authority and company information
• Insurance certificate and agent contact information
• Complete SMS or CAB report
• Explanations for elevated BASICs or out-of-service rates
• Documentation addressing recurring violations
• Crash register and preventability information
• DataQs and CPDP decisions
• Safety-technology inventory
• Current telematics settings and thresholds
• Twelve months of fleet safety results
• Driver coaching and corrective-action metrics
• Preventive-maintenance procedures
• Driver qualification and training summaries
• Recent internal or third-party audit results
• Corrective-action plans and completion records
• Status of any pending safety-rating upgrade request

The purpose is not to overwhelm the broker with paperwork. It is to provide organized evidence showing that the carrier understands its risks and has functioning controls to manage them.

Brokers Must Still Avoid Taking Over the Carrier’s Drivers

Stricter vetting does not mean a broker should begin operating the motor carrier’s safety department.

A broker can establish qualification standards, review carrier-level safety information and monitor whether a company remains qualified. The motor carrier should remain responsible for dispatching drivers, managing hours of service, choosing lawful routes, supervising driving behavior and deciding whether a driver can safely complete a trip.

Directing an individual driver’s hours, demanding continuous driver-level ELD access, bypassing carrier dispatch or making detailed driver-management decisions may create separate legal concerns.

The broker’s job is to select and monitor qualified motor carriers and not manage their drivers.

How CNS Can Help

CNS helps freight brokers develop structured carrier-vetting and safety due-diligence programs that go beyond basic authority and insurance checks. Through the PSM® Freight Broker Program, brokers can strengthen their carrier-selection standards, documentation and ongoing monitoring processes.

CNS also helps motor carriers understand their SMS and roadside inspection data, correct inaccurate records, address compliance deficiencies, improve safety-management controls and prepare safety-rating upgrade requests.

Whether you are selecting motor carriers or trying to remain on approved-carrier lists, CNS can help you build the documentation and safety processes needed to meet the changing standard.

This article is provided for educational purposes and is not legal advice. Brokers and motor carriers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific contracts, operations and liability exposures.