.png)
In an earlier article, we addressed the split in authority on broker liability and the Supreme Court’s decision to take up the issue in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. The Court issued its opinion on May 14, 2026, and since then, the industry has been working to understand its meaning and prepare for the implications.
In short, the question before the Court was whether state court negligent hiring claims fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception, thereby avoiding preemption and allowing plaintiffs to properly assert those claims. The issue ultimately turned on the definition of the phrase “with respect to” motor vehicles in the statute, which provides that the preemption provision “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”
The Court’s Interpretation of the FAAAA Safety Exception
Because the FAAAA does not define “with respect to,” the Court relied on principles of statutory construction and applied the phrase’s ordinary meaning, citing dictionary definitions indicating that “with respect to” means “concerns.” The Court had previously defined “concerns” in the FAAAA context in Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251, 261 (2013).
With that definition established, the Court found that requiring broker C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier “concerns” motor vehicles — namely, the trucks transporting the goods. As a result, Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, saving it from preemption and opening the door to such claims against brokers.
Importantly, the Court acknowledged that the safety exception does not preserve every type of claim, specifically identifying claims related to prices, routes, and services as remaining preempted.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito, demonstrates the nuance in the Court’s ruling. The concurrence explains that, based on the language of the FAAAA, intrastate commerce is not protected by the safety exception because Congress did not include exemption language in subsection (b). However, because Congress included such language in subsection (c), interstate commerce remains subject to negligent hiring claims.
Thus, for interstate shipments, state negligent hiring claims can proceed against brokers. With regard to intrastate shipments, the question remains unresolved.
The concurrence also noted that the FAAAA does not require brokers to maintain mandatory minimum insurance coverage.
Justice Kavanaugh further emphasized that the Court’s ruling does not mean brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability. He cited plaintiff’s counsel’s own words, noting that brokers “just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy” and that “the broker is not going to have a problem if it’s asking the hard questions of the carrier.”
Defending Broker and Carrier Claims After Montgomery
We began by trying to determine what “with respect to” meant, and we are now left pondering what constitutes a “reasonable policy” and “hard questions.” Those answers will likely develop through future litigation.
For now, it appears clear that all trucking accident cases should be evaluated with the understanding that a negligent hiring claim against the broker is likely looming, at least in some form. Brokers should review their vetting processes and be prepared to produce evidence demonstrating that those processes are reasonable.
Motor carriers, in addition to maintaining satisfactory safety protocols and ratings, should also be prepared to coordinate their defenses, to some extent, with brokers. For example, a motor carrier’s early admission of negligence may no longer have the effect of limiting discovery or preventing plaintiffs from attacking the company’s processes, training, prior accidents, and related issues if broker liability concerning the carrier’s fitness remains at issue.
Both motor carriers and brokers should revisit their agreements with the understanding that they are likely to become much more frequent co-defendants and should ensure those agreements remain suitable for this evolving landscape.
While we do not yet know exactly where the lines will ultimately be drawn, it is critical that, in the months and years ahead, the industry work together to aggressively defend against expansive pleadings and discovery efforts in order to limit attempts to broaden the scope of this ruling beyond the Court’s intended reach.
Transportation Industry Insights and Support
For questions about how this decision may impact your business, litigation strategy, broker vetting procedures, or transportation agreements, contact Chartwell’s Transportation and Trucking Practice Group. Our attorneys continue to monitor developments closely and are available to assist brokers, motor carriers, insurers, and transportation companies as this area of law continues to evolve.
