On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that freight brokers can be held liable under state law for negligently selecting unsafe motor carriers. The decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC removes a legal shield that freight brokers have relied on for years and changes the way safety records will factor into carrier selection decisions across the freight industry.
For motor carriers, the implications are significant. The freight brokers who assign your loads now have a direct financial incentive to scrutinize your safety performance before doing business with you.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court ruled that federal law does not protect freight brokers from state negligent hiring lawsuits when a carrier they selected is involved in a crash. The decision was unanimous.
- Freight brokers are expected to tighten their carrier vetting processes, favoring carriers with strong, documented safety programs and clean compliance records.
- Motor carriers without established safety programs may find it harder to secure loads from freight brokers, particularly smaller carriers that rely heavily on brokered freight.
- The ruling does not define what "reasonable care" looks like for freight brokers or what motor carriers need to do to demonstrate safety compliance.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The case began with a 2017 crash on Interstate 70 in Illinois. Shawn Montgomery, a truck driver, had pulled over due to a mechanical issue when another tractor-trailer rear-ended his stopped vehicle. Montgomery's injuries led to a partial leg amputation.
Montgomery sued not only the driver and the motor carrier (Caribe Transport) but also C.H. Robinson Worldwide, the freight broker that had arranged the shipment. His attorneys argued that C.H. Robinson should have reviewed the carrier's safety history before assigning the load, pointing to prior crashes and careless driving citations involving the driver and carrier.
C.H. Robinson argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) shielded freight brokers from these types of state-level negligent hiring claims. Lower courts had agreed. But the Supreme Court reversed that position, finding that the FAAAA's safety exception preserves state authority to regulate motor vehicle safety. In the Court's view, a claim that a freight broker negligently selected an unsafe carrier falls squarely within that exception.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, noted that the ruling "should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck [crashes]," adding that freight brokers who act reasonably and work with reputable carriers should be able to defend themselves successfully.
What This Means for Motor Carriers
The immediate effect of this ruling is on freight brokers, not carriers. But the downstream impact will be felt throughout the supply chain.
Freight brokers now face direct legal exposure when a carrier they selected is involved in a crash. That exposure creates a strong financial incentive for freight brokers to evaluate motor carrier safety performance more carefully than they have in the past. Industry analysts at TD Cowen noted in a post-ruling research report that the ruling is expected to drive freight volumes toward carriers with strong compliance records while pushing non-compliant carriers out of the market.
For carriers that already invest in driver safety, this is a competitive advantage. A documented safety program, clean inspection records, strong CSA scores, and evidence of ongoing driver monitoring and training are exactly the types of signals freight brokers will look for when evaluating which carriers to work with.
For carriers without those programs, the pressure is real. More than 90% of interstate motor carriers currently operate without an FMCSA safety rating, according to agency data. Until now, carriers without ratings were generally presumed safe. This ruling may change that assumption among freight brokers, who will likely seek additional evidence of safety performance beyond just active authority and insurance.
Here are the areas where motor carriers should focus:
- Driver monitoring: Freight brokers may begin asking whether carriers have continuous monitoring programs in place for driver violations, license status changes, and compliance issues. Annual MVR checks alone may no longer be sufficient to demonstrate proactive risk management.
- Training documentation: Evidence that drivers receive targeted, ongoing training, particularly following violations or incidents, demonstrates an intervention-focused approach to safety that a freight broker can point to in its own defense.
- CSA and inspection records: Carriers with elevated out-of-service rates, unresolved violations, or poor Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) scores may face increased scrutiny or reduced access to brokered freight.
- Crash history and remediation: A carrier's crash record will matter more than ever. But equally important is the ability to show what steps were taken after an incident to prevent future occurrences.
What This Means for Freight Brokers
Freight brokers have lost the blanket federal preemption defense they previously relied on to dismiss negligent carrier selection claims. Going forward, when a freight broker selects a carrier that is later involved in a serious crash, the freight broker may need to demonstrate in court that it exercised reasonable care in making that selection.
The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), which represents freight brokers and third-party logistics providers, called the ruling disappointing but acknowledged it was not the end of the industry. TIA President and CEO Chris Burroughs noted that the preemption defense was already ineffective in several states and that freight brokers still have the ability to defend against negligent selection claims on the merits.
Still, the practical implications are significant. Freight brokers are expected to invest more in carrier vetting processes, expand the safety data they evaluate during onboarding, and potentially reduce the size of their approved carrier networks. Insurance costs for freight brokers are also expected to rise, with some industry estimates projecting increases of three to five times current rates.
Freight brokers should work with their legal counsel to evaluate their current carrier selection processes and determine whether those processes would meet a "reasonable care" standard in litigation. The ruling did not define what reasonable care looks like, which means the standard will be established through future lawsuits on a state-by-state basis.
What the Ruling Did Not Do
It is important to understand the boundaries of this decision.
The ruling does not make freight brokers automatically liable every time a carrier they selected is involved in a crash. Plaintiffs must still prove that the freight broker failed to exercise reasonable care when selecting the carrier and that the failure contributed to the crash. Freight brokers that work with reputable, well-vetted carriers and maintain documented selection processes will be in a stronger position to defend themselves.
The ruling also does not establish a national standard for carrier vetting or define what constitutes adequate due diligence. That ambiguity is one of the primary concerns raised by the freight brokerage industry. Without clear federal guidance, the standard of care will be interpreted differently across states, creating what opponents of the ruling have described as a patchwork of state-level requirements.
The ruling does not address what motor carriers need to do to prove they are taking a proactive approach to safety. That question will likely be answered over time through litigation, insurance requirements, and evolving industry standards.
Both freight brokers and motor carriers should consult with their legal teams to understand how this ruling affects their specific operations and risk exposure.
Acting Now Rather Than Waiting
Lawsuits targeting freight brokers for negligent carrier selection are already being filed in the wake of the ruling. The legal landscape is shifting in a way that rewards proactive safety management and documented risk reduction.
For motor carriers, the path forward is to ensure that your safety program is not just compliant on paper but demonstrable in practice. That means having evidence of how you evaluate drivers before hire, how you monitor their records and behavior over time, how you respond when issues are identified, and how you measure whether your interventions are working.
The carriers that can answer those questions with data will be the carriers that freight brokers want to work with.
SambaSafety recently launched SambaSafety Verified, a fleet safety accreditation program that recognizes motor carriers committed to reducing driver risk. Eligible fleets receive documented proof of the accreditation that can be shared with freight brokers.
If you are interested in taking a more proactive approach to managing driver risk, from pre-hire evaluation through continuous monitoring and targeted training, learn how SambaSafety helps motor carriers build and document safety programs that reduce violations and prevent crashes.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Supreme Court's ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC may have different implications depending on your state, business structure, and operations. SambaSafety recommends consulting with qualified legal counsel to understand how this decision may affect your organization.
