Supreme Court’s Montgomery Decision: What It Means for Freight Brokers and Trucking Companies

The U.S. Supreme Court has officially weighed in on one of the trucking industry’s most closely watched legal battles and the ruling could significantly reshape liability exposure for freight brokers and motor carriers alike.

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, the Court unanimously held that freight brokers are not automatically shielded from state-law negligent hiring lawsuits under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) when they select an allegedly unsafe motor carrier.

The decision marks a major shift in how courts may evaluate broker responsibility in truck crash litigation and reinforces the growing importance of carrier safety performance in the freight marketplace.

Let’s take a closer look.

What Was the Case About?

The case stemmed from a 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery, whose parked tractor-trailer was struck by another commercial vehicle operated by Caribe Transport II. The crash caused catastrophic injuries, including the loss of Montgomery’s leg.

Montgomery sued the driver, the carrier, and freight broker C.H. Robinson, alleging the broker negligently hired Caribe Transport despite its documented safety problems.

According to court filings, Caribe Transport allegedly had a “conditional” FMCSA safety rating and deficiencies involving:

• Driver qualification issues
• Hours-of-service violations
• Vehicle inspection and maintenance concerns
• Crash history problems
• Other roadside safety deficiencies

C.H. Robinson argued that federal law preempted these types of claims because broker selection decisions are part of broker “services” protected under the FAAAA.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Supreme Court’s Key Ruling

The Court ruled that while the FAAAA broadly preempts state laws related to broker “prices, routes, and services,” the law also contains an important “safety exception.”

That exception preserves a state’s authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles.” The Court concluded that negligent hiring claims against brokers fall within that exception because selecting unsafe carriers directly concerns highway safety and commercial motor vehicles.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the unanimous Court, stated:

“Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore ‘concerns’ motor vehicles — most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods.”

In practical terms, the ruling means brokers can potentially be sued under state negligence laws if they fail to use reasonable care when selecting carriers with known safety concerns.

What This Means for Freight Brokers

Broker Vetting Practices Just Became More Important

The ruling does not automatically make brokers liable every time a carrier is involved in a crash. However, it significantly raises the stakes surrounding carrier selection and documentation.

Going forward, plaintiff attorneys will likely focus heavily on questions such as:

• Did the broker review FMCSA safety data?
• Were there prior crashes or safety alerts?
• Did the carrier have a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating?
• Were there repeated out-of-service violations?
• Did the broker ignore obvious warning signs?

The Court’s decision essentially confirms that brokers cannot rely solely on FAAAA preemption as a blanket defense.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion emphasized this point, noting that brokers may avoid liability if they can demonstrate they acted reasonably and used reputable carriers.

That means broker compliance programs, carrier onboarding procedures, and ongoing carrier monitoring may now face far greater scrutiny during litigation.

Increased Litigation Exposure Is Likely

The trucking industry should expect a rise in negligent hiring lawsuits targeting brokers.

Plaintiff attorneys now have a clearer legal pathway to pursue claims against brokers, particularly in severe injury or fatal crash cases involving:

• Poor FMCSA safety ratings
• Chameleon carrier allegations
• Unsafe driver histories
• Excessive out-of-service rates
• Hours-of-service patterns
• Repeated maintenance violations

Industry observers have already warned that this decision could become a major turning point for broker liability exposure.

Insurance and Operating Costs May Rise

One of the concerns raised during the case was the potential economic impact on the freight industry.

The Court acknowledged that increased litigation, insurance costs, and expanded carrier vetting requirements could raise operating expenses throughout the supply chain.

Brokers may respond by:

• Tightening carrier qualification standards
• Increasing insurance requirements for carriers
• Conducting deeper safety audits
• Reducing use of smaller or higher-risk fleets
• Investing in enhanced monitoring software and compliance tools

What This Means for Motor Carriers

Safety Scores May Directly Affect Freight Opportunities

This decision is equally important for carriers.

A carrier’s CSA/SMS data, inspection history, crash record, and safety rating may now have an even greater impact on its ability to secure brokered freight.

If brokers face potential liability for negligent selection, many will likely avoid carriers with:

• Conditional safety ratings
• Elevated BASIC percentile scores
• Frequent roadside violations
• Poor maintenance histories
• High crash indicators
• Inconsistent compliance records

For carriers, safety performance is no longer just a regulatory issue, it may increasingly become a business development issue.

Chameleon Carrier Concerns Are Adding Pressure

The ruling arrives amid heightened industry attention on alleged “chameleon carrier” operations, which are companies accused of rebranding or restructuring to evade enforcement and poor safety histories.

A recent industry analysis connected the Montgomery case to growing scrutiny surrounding Super Ego Holding and broader concerns over unsafe carrier networks.

As regulators, brokers, insurers, and shippers place greater emphasis on carrier vetting, carriers with questionable histories may face increasing difficulty obtaining freight opportunities.

The Bigger Picture

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not create automatic broker liability, nor does it eliminate federal protections for brokers under the FAAAA.

What it does is clarify that highway safety remains a legitimate area of state oversight, even when brokers are involved.

The decision signals that courts may increasingly expect brokers to exercise meaningful diligence when selecting motor carriers, especially when obvious safety red flags exist.

For the trucking industry, this case could become one of the most influential broker liability decisions in decades.

And for both brokers and carriers, safety data now matters more than ever.

Need help protecting your operation before safety issues become legal or business risks?

CNS Proactive Safety Management® programs help trucking companies identify compliance gaps, strengthen safety programs, and address the red flags that brokers, insurers, regulators, and attorneys may scrutinize after the Montgomery decision.

From CSA/SMS monitoring and DOT compliance support to driver qualification, hours-of-service, maintenance, and safety management reviews, CNS helps carriers build safer, more defensible operations.

Don’t wait for a crash, audit, or lost freight opportunity to expose preventable issues. Contact CNS today to review your safety performance and build a proactive plan for reducing risk.

Interested? Learn more by filling out the form below or click this link.