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 does not mean brokers are automatically liable after a crash. But it does mean brokers may face state-law negligence claims if they fail to use reasonable care when selecting a carrier with known safety concerns.

For trucking companies, the message is just as important: carrier safety performance may now play an even bigger role in freight opportunities, broker relationships, insurance reviews, and litigation risk.

Quick Answer: What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Montgomery v. Caribe?

The Supreme Court ruled that a state-law negligent hiring claim against a freight broker is not preempted by the FAAAA when the claim relates to highway safety and motor vehicles.

In plain English, freight brokers can potentially be sued if they are accused of hiring an unsafe motor carrier and that carrier is involved in a serious crash.

The Court found that these claims fall under the FAAAA’s safety exception, which preserves a state’s authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles.”al law preempted these types of claims because broker selection decisions are part of broker “services” protected under the FAAAA.

Why This Case Matters to Freight Brokers and Carriers

The Montgomery decision matters because it limits one of the freight brokerage industry’s most important legal defenses: federal preemption under the FAAAA.

For years, brokers have argued that carrier selection is part of their federally protected “services,” and that state-law negligent hiring claims should be blocked.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The ruling means courts may now look more closely at how brokers evaluate, approve, and monitor motor carriers. It also means carriers with poor safety records, conditional ratings, high violation rates, or inconsistent compliance histories may face more scrutiny from brokers and shippers.

What Was the Montgomery Case About?

The case stemmed from a 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery. Montgomery’s parked tractor-trailer was struck by another commercial vehicle operated by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was driving for Caribe Transport II, LLC.

The crash caused catastrophic injuries, including the amputation of Montgomery’s leg.

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

According to the Supreme Court opinion, Montgomery alleged that Caribe Transport had a “conditional” FMCSA safety rating and deficiencies involving:

• Driver qualification
• Hours of service
• Inspection, repair, and maintenance
• Recordable crash rate
• Other safety-related concerns

C.H. Robinson argued that the FAAAA preempted the claim because broker carrier-selection decisions are part of broker services.

The Supreme Court held that the claim could move forward because it fell within the law’s safety exception.

Does Montgomery Make Freight Brokers Automatically Liable?

No. The Montgomery decision does not create automatic broker liability.

It allows negligent hiring claims to proceed under state law when the claim is tied to motor vehicle safety. A plaintiff still must prove the legal elements of negligence, which may include duty, breach, causation, and damages.

For brokers, the key question becomes whether they acted reasonably when selecting the carrier.

That means documentation matters.

A broker that can show it reviewed available safety information, followed a consistent carrier-vetting process, and made a reasonable selection may be in a stronger position than a broker that cannot explain or document its process.

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?
• Did the carrier have a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating?
• Were there prior crashes or obvious safety red flags?
• Did the carrier have repeated out-of-service violations?
• Were there driver qualification or maintenance concerns?
• Did the broker follow a documented carrier-selection policy?
• Did the broker continue using the carrier after new safety concerns appeared?

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

The Montgomery decision is not only a broker issue. It is also a motor carrier issue.

If brokers face increased liability for selecting unsafe carriers, they may become more selective about which carriers they use.

That means a carrier’s safety profile may have a stronger impact on its ability to win freight.

Brokers may pay closer attention to:

• FMCSA safety ratings
• CSA/SMS BASIC percentiles
• Crash history
• Inspection results
• Out-of-service rates
• Driver qualification compliance
• Hours-of-service violations
• Vehicle maintenance violations
• Insurance coverage
• Authority status and operating history

For carriers, safety performance is no longer only a regulatory issue. It is increasingly a sales, insurance, and business development issue.

Carriers With Weak Compliance Records May Face More Scrutiny

Carriers with a conditional safety rating, frequent roadside violations, weak maintenance records, or poor documentation may find it harder to pass broker onboarding requirements.

Even carriers without a formal safety rating may face additional questions if their inspection history, crash data, or compliance records raise concerns.

This is especially important for small and mid-sized fleets that rely heavily on brokered freight.

A weak safety profile may lead to fewer loads, stricter insurance requirements, or additional documentation requests.

How Can Carriers Prepare After Montgomery?

Motor carriers can prepare after the Montgomery decision by improving safety documentation, monitoring CSA/SMS data, addressing roadside violations, strengthening Driver Qualification Files, maintaining vehicles properly, and creating a proactive safety management process.

The goal is to reduce the safety red flags that brokers, insurers, shippers, regulators, and attorneys may review after a crash or claim.

Chameleon Carrier Concerns Add More Pressure

The Montgomery decision comes at a time when the industry is paying closer attention to alleged “chameleon carrier” operations.

Chameleon carriers are companies accused of rebranding, restructuring, or reopening under new authority to avoid poor safety histories, enforcement actions, unpaid claims, or negative compliance records.

As brokers, insurers, and shippers tighten carrier vetting, carriers with questionable ownership histories, new authority patterns, or inconsistent operating records may face more scrutiny.

For legitimate carriers, this makes documentation and transparency even more important.

Minimum Carrier Vetting vs. Proactive Carrier Safety

Minimum Approach	Proactive Approach
Check operating authority once	Monitor authority and safety data regularly
Confirm insurance at onboarding	Track insurance updates and expiration dates
Review safety rating only	Review safety rating, violations, crashes, and trends
React after a crash or claim	Identify and correct red flags before they create risk
Keep basic compliance files	Maintain documented, audit-ready safety records
Treat safety as a regulatory issue	Treat safety as a business, insurance, and legal risk issue

The Bigger Picture for Trucking

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.

Why Safety Data Matters More Than Ever

After Montgomery, safety data may carry more business consequences.

A carrier’s safety record can affect:

• Broker approval
• Load opportunities
• Insurance premiums
• Shipper confidence
• Litigation exposure
• Audit risk
• Reputation in the freight marketplace

Carriers that proactively monitor and improve their safety performance will be better positioned than those that wait for a crash, audit, or lost freight opportunity to reveal problems.

What Should Trucking Companies Do Now?

1. Review Your CSA/SMS Data

Monitor your BASIC percentiles, roadside violations, inspection history, and crash indicators. Identify patterns before brokers, insurers, or attorneys do.

2. Strengthen Driver Qualification Files

Make sure Driver Qualification Files are complete, current, and audit-ready. Driver qualification concerns were specifically referenced in the Montgomery allegations.

3. Address Hours-of-Service Issues

Repeated hours-of-service violations can signal weak safety controls. Review ELD data, driver logs, supporting documents, and corrective action procedures.

4. Improve Vehicle Maintenance Documentation

Maintenance violations can quickly become legal and operational red flags. Keep inspection, repair, and maintenance records organized and defensible.

5. Document Corrective Actions

When violations occur, document what happened, what was corrected, who was responsible, and how you will prevent recurrence.

6. Build a Proactive Safety Management Program

A proactive safety program helps carriers identify risks before they become crashes, claims, audits, or lost freight opportunities.

How CNS Helps Carriers Reduce Risk After Montgomery

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 brokers, insurers, regulators, shippers, and attorneys may scrutinize after the Montgomery decision.

CNS can support carriers with:

• CSA/SMS monitoring
• DOT compliance reviews
• Driver Qualification File management
• Hours-of-service compliance
• Vehicle maintenance compliance
• Safety management reviews
• Corrective action planning
• Occupational health and driver fitness support
• Proactive Safety Management® programs

Don’t wait for a crash, audit, or lost freight opportunity to expose preventable issues.

Ready to Strengthen Your Safety Program?

The Montgomery decision makes one thing clear: safety performance is no longer just a compliance issue. It is a business risk, legal risk, insurance risk, and freight opportunity issue.

CNS helps motor carriers build safer, more defensible operations through customized Proactive Safety Management® programs.

Interested in reducing risk and strengthening your safety performance? Fill out the form below or click this link to learn more.