SCOTUS: FAAAA Does Not Preempt Negligent-Selection Claims Against Freight Brokers — What Brokers, Carriers and Shippers Should Do Now

Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 WL 1336188 (U.S. May 14, 2026)

Overview

In a unanimous decision released May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) does not preempt state-law claims that a freight broker negligently selected an unsafe motor carrier. The Court concluded that such claims fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception.

For brokers, investing in and rigorously executing motor carrier vetting processes will be more critical than ever in the wake of this decision. Brokers should also consider review or development of policies and procedures, minimum carrier standards, training protocols, and document retention policies, as a starting point.

At the same time, motor carriers—particularly small to mid-sized operators that depend on brokered freight—should proactively evaluate and strengthen their safety programs (where needed), policies, and performance history. These carriers must be prepared to clearly demonstrate to brokerage partners why they represent a reliable and defensible transportation option, especially when competing against larger carriers who may be perceived to have more robust safety infrastructure, corporate resources, and, often, higher available insurance limits.

With respect to shippers who engage brokers to arrange for movement of their freight, review of shipper-broker contract provisions relating to minimum carrier standards and indemnity language is warranted.

Core Facts and Procedural Background of Montgomery

Shawn Montgomery suffered severe injuries after his tractor-trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena. The driver was operating for Caribe Transport II, LLC, and the shipment had been arranged by a broker, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Montgomery alleged that the broker negligently selected an unsafe carrier.

The plaintiff pointed to the carrier’s “conditional” safety rating, among other poor safety records, and asserted that the broker knew or should have known that the carrier presented a heightened safety risk. The District Court and Seventh Circuit held that the claim was preempted, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the case now returns to the lower court for further proceedings, where C.H. Robinson will be afforded an opportunity to defend the case on the merits, including the reasonability of its carrier vetting procedures, and whether any of C.H. Robinson’s conduct contributed to or caused the injuries suffered by Shawn Montgomery.

For Brokers, Core Defenses to State Law Claims Remain – But at a Cost

Brokers have not lost any of their traditional defenses to state-law causes of action, including claims for negligent selection. In this regard, brokers will continue to have the opportunity to demonstrate that they exercised reasonable care in the selection and retention of motor carriers, and how their actions (or inactions) did not cause or contribute to the alleged loss.

What today’s decision does change, however, is the procedural posture of these cases. Brokers can no longer expect a prompt exit from litigation through early motions to dismiss grounded in FAAAA preemption. Instead, these claims are far more likely to proceed into the discovery phase.

As a result, brokers must be prepared to participate fully in pre-trial litigation and will be subject to the broad scope of discovery typically afforded to plaintiffs. This will include written discovery requests directed at a broker’s carrier vetting files, internal policies and procedures, and general training materials, as well as communications such as emails, text messages, and other records relating to carrier selection and incident response.

In many instances, this shift will require not only a renewed focus on developing and maintaining robust, well-documented policies and procedures, but also a careful reassessment of document retention practices—particularly with respect to email and messaging platforms. Brokers should also anticipate defending these materials, and the decisions reflected in them, through deposition testimony and, ultimately, in later stages of litigation.

Winning Defenses

Introductory tort law teaches that negligence claims rise and fall on three elements: duty, breach, and causation. Montgomery does not alter that framework—but it meaningfully shifts who decides what that duty is.

First, the Supreme Court’s decision effectively returns to the states the authority to define the applicable standard of care governing broker conduct. In most jurisdictions, that standard will continue to be framed as a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection and retention of motor carriers. As a practical matter, this means the duty element will rarely be a meaningful barrier at the outset of litigation; courts are likely to find that brokers owe some duty under state law, allowing claims to proceed into discovery.

The focus, therefore, will shift to breach—whether the broker actually satisfied that duty in a given case. This inquiry is inherently fact-driven. Brokers will need to demonstrate, through contemporaneous documentation and witness testimony, that their carrier selection processes were reasonable, consistently applied, and responsive to available safety information at the time of the load. Policies, vetting criteria, internal communications, and training practices will all become central evidence in that determination.

Even where a plaintiff is able to establish a triable issue on breach, causation also remains a critical defense. To prevail, the plaintiff must do more than identify alleged deficiencies in the broker’s vetting process; the plaintiff must link those alleged deficiencies to the specific accident at issue, establishing that the broker’s conduct actually caused or materially contributed to the alleged injuries.

This causation inquiry introduces significant complexity. It typically requires detailed factual development and expert analysis addressing issues such as driver conduct, vehicle condition, roadway factors, intervening causes, and the carrier’s independent operational decisions. In many cases, the causal chain between a broker’s selection decision and the ultimate accident will be attenuated or non-existent, creating meaningful opportunities for defense.

However, these opportunities come with a practical caveat: causation defenses are rarely resolved at the pleading stage, often cannot be meaningfully adjudicated without a developed factual record, and are often obstacles to pre-trial resolution through summary judgment practice. As a result, brokers will be required to invest in full-scale discovery, expert retention, and motion practice before obtaining a judicial determination on causation—if not proceeding all the way to trial.

In this respect, while Montgomery preserves the substance of traditional defenses, it significantly alters their timing and cost profile. Success on the merits remains achievable, but it will more often be realized only after substantial litigation investment rather than through early dispositive motion practice.

Brokers must now balance this new scrutiny with the reality that exercising too much control and oversight over their contracted motor carrier could inadvertently give rise to additional claims of vicarious liability. Unfortunately, today’s decision provides no roadmap to these central considerations.

Impact on Shippers: Erosion of an Emerging FAAAA Shield

In recent years, shippers have increasingly relied on the FAAAA as a derivative preemption defense when they arrange transportation through brokers. This strategy asserted that claims against the shipper, tied to broker-arranged transportation, were also preempted. The Supreme Court’s decision removes the FAAAA defense from the shipper’s tool chest altogether.

In response to today’s decision, shippers may benefit from revisiting and strengthening their shipper-broker agreements to address core carrier-vetting expectations, including:

• clearly defined carrier vetting standards;
• requirements for brokers to subscribe to third-party and real-time carrier vetting software;
• restrictions or prohibitions on the use of carriers with “conditional,” “unsatisfactory,” or “not rated” safety designations;
• establishment of minimum insurance requirements for carriers contracted to haul the shipper’s freight, including what procedures the broker has in place to verify authenticity of carrier certificates of insurance; and
• clear documentation expectations tied to carrier qualification.

For some shippers, this may also warrant inclusion of audit rights to periodically review broker compliance with contractual carrier selection obligations.

As has long been the case, robust indemnity and risk allocation provisions remain essential, but they now assume heightened importance. Shippers must not only establish minimum insurance requirements sufficient to ensure that brokers can satisfy their contractual obligations—including indemnity obligations—but must also implement and consistently execute internal protocols to verify that such coverage is in place before load tender.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that negligent-selection claims against brokers will proceed past the pleading stage in most cases. It also signals that upstream participants, including shippers, may no longer rely on FAAAA preemption as a reliable shield. Although strong defenses remain, parties should prepare for increased litigation exposure and invest in defensible, well-documented safety and selection practices.

As the fallout continues, the industry will likely see a consolidation of brokered freight into larger, more sophisticated motor carriers, perceived by brokers to be less risky, more reliable, and more financially solvent in the event of catastrophic losses. For smaller to mid-sized motor carriers, getting ahead of this wave will mean renewed attention to safety and the development of a narrative with their brokerage partners demonstrative of why they deserve to be included in a more selective list of carrier partners.

Finally, all parties should be prepared for further insurance premium increases to cover the costs of defense that will be associated with increased, more protracted, litigation.