On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, a case with important implications for freight broker liability and carrier selection.
The Court held that a state-law negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker falls within the safety exception to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, commonly called the FAAAA. As a result, the claim was not barred by the Act's federal preemption provision.
The ruling did not find the broker negligent.
It did not create automatic liability, prescribe a carrier-vetting checklist, or decide whether shippers are liable when they select a carrier.
It did, however, remove a preemption defense that had ended similar claims early in several federal courts.
For shippers, the practical lesson is straightforward:
Ask how freight partners select carriers, what information they review, how exceptions are approved, and whether the process is documented.
This article provides general information about an industry and legal development. It is not legal advice. Consult qualified legal counsel and insurance advisers about your contracts, operations, and specific exposure.
Montgomery v. Caribe at a glance
Decision date: May 14, 2026
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Result: Unanimous decision reversing the Seventh Circuit and remanding the case
Core issue: Whether the FAAAA's safety exception allows a state negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker
Holding: The claim is not preempted because it concerns motor-vehicle safety and falls within the statutory safety exception
What the Court did not decide: Whether the broker was actually negligent or what specific carrier-selection practices reasonable care requires
The Court's majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a separate concurrence joined by Justice Samuel Alito.
What happened in the case
In 2017, Shawn Montgomery's tractor-trailer was stopped on the shoulder of an Illinois highway when another truck left the roadway and struck it.
Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries.
The other driver worked for Caribe Transport II, LLC.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., acting as a freight broker, had coordinated the shipment.
Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson negligently hired the driver and carrier.
According to the allegations summarized by the Court, Caribe Transport had a conditional federal safety rating, including cited deficiencies involving driver qualifications, hours of service, vehicle inspection and maintenance, and crash rate.
The federal district court entered judgment for C.H. Robinson on the negligent-hiring claim, relying on Seventh Circuit precedent holding that the FAAAA preempted this type of claim against a broker.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Federal appellate courts had divided on the issue.
The Sixth and Ninth Circuits had permitted comparable claims under the safety exception, while the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits had taken the opposite approach.
The Supreme Court accepted the case to resolve that split.
What the Supreme Court actually held
The FAAAA generally preempts state laws related to a motor carrier's or broker's prices, routes, or services concerning the transportation of property.
But the Act also contains an exception preserving a state's safety regulatory authority “with respect to motor vehicles.”
The Court assumed, without deciding, that the preemption provision would otherwise cover Montgomery's claim.
It then held that the safety exception saved the claim from preemption.
The reasoning was direct.
A negligent-hiring claim of this type requires a company to use reasonable care when selecting a contractor for work involving a risk of physical harm.
Requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care when choosing a motor carrier concerns the trucks that will perform the transportation.
The claim therefore concerns motor vehicles and falls within the safety exception.
The result is narrower than some headlines suggest but still significant:
A broker can no longer rely on this FAAAA preemption argument to end this type of state-law negligent-hiring claim at the outset.
What the decision did not do
It did not impose automatic freight broker liability
The Supreme Court resolved a federal preemption question.
It did not rule that C.H. Robinson breached a duty, caused the accident, or owed damages.
A plaintiff must still establish the elements of a negligence claim under the applicable state law.
Those elements, available defenses, and outcomes can vary by jurisdiction and by the facts of each case.
It did not create a federal carrier-vetting standard
The Court did not specify which databases a broker must check, how often monitoring must occur, or which safety indicators require disqualification.
Those questions will continue to be addressed through state law, contracts, company policies, insurance requirements, expert testimony, and future litigation.
It did not decide shipper liability
The defendant before the Court was a freight broker.
The opinion did not decide whether a shipper is liable for directly selecting a carrier or for hiring a broker that later selects a carrier.
Shipper duties may be argued under state law and can depend on the jurisdiction, the contract, the shipper's role, and the degree of control exercised over carrier selection.
Shippers should not treat Montgomery as a ruling that automatically expands their liability, but they should review their own processes with counsel.
It did not change cargo-loss law
The case concerned bodily injury and alleged negligent hiring.
It did not address liability for lost or damaged cargo or alter the separate federal framework commonly associated with the Carmack Amendment.
Why the ruling matters to shippers
Even though Montgomery did not decide a claim against a shipper, it changes the risk environment around freight partner selection.
A serious accident can lead to questions about:
How the carrier was chosen
What information was available at the time
Whether warning signs were considered
Whether normal procedures were followed
Whether an exception was approved to cover an urgent load
For shippers, that makes three areas especially important.
1. Broker selection
Does the broker have a defined carrier-qualification process?
2. Contract allocation
Do the agreement's insurance, indemnity, carrier-selection, and audit provisions reflect the actual operating model?
3. Exception management
What happens when normal standards conflict with an urgent coverage need?
The goal is not to guarantee that an accident can never happen.
No broker, carrier, or shipper can eliminate transportation risk.
The goal is to make carrier-selection decisions deliberate, consistent, and capable of being explained.
What carrier information is publicly available?
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration provides several public tools that can support carrier qualification.
The FMCSA's SAFER Company Snapshot can include a carrier's:
Identifying information
Operating status
Inspection information
Out-of-service summaries
Reportable crash data
Safety rating, if one has been assigned
The FMCSA Licensing and Insurance system provides information about operating authority and required insurance filings.
These tools are useful, but they are not a complete pass-or-fail system.
Public data may be incomplete, delayed, or require context.
A crash count, out-of-service rate, or “not rated” status is not by itself a legal conclusion about whether a carrier is safe or whether selecting it is negligent.
A defensible process therefore requires more than opening a database.
It requires written criteria, consistent application, documented review, and a defined approach to exceptions.
10 questions shippers should ask their freight broker
1. What do you review before a carrier moves its first load for us?
Ask for specific criteria rather than a general assurance that carriers are “fully vetted.”
The answer may include:
Operating authority
Insurance filings
Available safety data
Carrier identity
Equipment type
Operating history
Commodity-specific requirements
2. How do you confirm the carrier's identity and insurance?
Ask how the broker verifies that the company presenting itself as the carrier is the entity shown in federal records and that the insurance information is current.
Public filings and certificates can be part of the process, but higher-risk loads may warrant additional confirmation.
3. Do you monitor carriers after onboarding?
Carrier information changes.
Authority can lapse, insurance filings can change, ownership or contact details may be updated, and safety performance can deteriorate.
Ask what is rechecked, how often, and whether monitoring occurs before every load or on a risk-based schedule.
4. Is the carrier-selection review documented and timestamped?
Documentation can help show which information was reviewed and when the decision was made.
Ask how long records are retained and whether the broker can produce the qualification record for a specific load.
5. What conditions disqualify a carrier?
A credible process should contain written standards.
Ask which findings trigger:
Rejection
Enhanced review
Temporary suspension
Permanent removal from the network
6. Who can approve an exception?
Every logistics operation eventually faces an urgent load with limited capacity.
Ask who can override normal criteria, what additional review is required, and how the reason for the exception is recorded.
7. How do you address unauthorized re-brokering?
A qualification process is weakened if the selected carrier hands the load to another company without authorization.
Ask about:
Contract restrictions
Identity checks
Dispatch verification
Driver confirmation
Equipment confirmation
Escalation procedures when information does not match
8. What insurance may respond to broker-operation or negligent-selection claims?
Do not assume that a standard certificate answers the question.
Ask what liability coverages the broker maintains, what exclusions may apply, and whether limits are appropriate for your commodities, shipment values, and operating profile.
Review the answer with your own insurance adviser.
9. What does our contract require?
Carrier-selection duties, indemnification, insurance limits, record retention, subcontracting, notice obligations, and audit rights should match the way freight is actually handled.
Have counsel review the agreement rather than relying only on a sales presentation.
10. What changed after Montgomery v. Caribe?
A thoughtful freight partner should be able to explain whether it reviewed its:
Carrier criteria
Documentation
Training
Contracts
Exception approvals
Insurance program
after the decision.
What shippers should review internally
Document how freight partners are selected
Keep a record of the commercial, operational, safety, insurance, and service factors used to appoint a broker or 3PL.
Ask counsel what should be retained and for how long.
Align the contract with the operating process
A contract should not promise controls that neither party follows.
Define responsibilities clearly, including:
Who selects the carrier
What qualification standards apply
Whether re-brokering is prohibited
What documentation may be requested
Review direct carrier selection separately
When a shipper selects a motor carrier without a broker, different contractual and state-law questions may apply.
Confirm that internal procurement and transportation teams follow the same documented criteria across:
Contract freight
Spot freight
Emergency loads
After-hours moves
Measure exceptions
Track how often freight moves outside the normal process.
Last-minute spot coverage, weekend recovery loads, unfamiliar carriers, and manual overrides deserve visibility because they are the moments when written standards are most likely to be bypassed.
Review insurance with qualified advisers
Ask how the shipper's own insurance program may respond to allegations arising from carrier or broker selection.
Coverage questions are policy-specific and should be reviewed with an experienced insurance adviser or qualified counsel.
Why a tighter freight market makes consistency harder
The legal development arrived during a more difficult truckload market.
As capacity becomes harder to secure, teams face more pressure to approve unfamiliar carriers or bypass normal procedures.
That does not change the applicable legal standard.
It makes disciplined exception management more important.
The practical response is:
Earlier planning on recurring lanes
Clearer escalation rules
More qualified capacity options
Less dependence on last-minute coverage
The goal is to avoid turning one urgent load into an improvised carrier-selection decision.
How Varstar Alliance approaches carrier selection
At Varstar Alliance, carrier qualification is treated as part of freight execution, not as a final administrative checkbox.
Our approach focuses on:
Reviewing operating authority, insurance status, carrier identity, and available safety information before tendering freight
Confirming that the carrier assigned to the load is the carrier expected to move it
Using controls intended to reduce unauthorized re-brokering and identity mismatches
Retaining qualification and load records so decisions can be reviewed
Planning capacity earlier for recurring, cross-border, high-value, and time-sensitive freight
No freight provider can eliminate every accident, fraud attempt, or service failure.
A responsible provider can apply a consistent process, document its decisions, and avoid treating urgent coverage as a reason to abandon its standards.
The bottom line
Montgomery v. Caribe did not make freight brokers automatically liable for motor-carrier accidents.
It held that the FAAAA's safety exception allows this type of state negligent-hiring claim against a broker to proceed without being barred by federal preemption.
That makes the quality of carrier selection and documentation more important.
It does not create a universal checklist or decide shipper liability.
Shippers should respond by:
Asking better questions
Reviewing contracts
Reviewing insurance
Understanding how exceptions are handled
Confirming that the freight partner's stated vetting process exists in practice
Carrier selection has always affected service, fraud exposure, and cargo integrity.
After Montgomery, it deserves even closer attention as part of transportation risk management.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide in Montgomery v. Caribe?
The Court held that a state-law negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker falls within the FAAAA's motor-vehicle safety exception and is therefore not preempted on that basis.
Did the Supreme Court find C.H. Robinson negligent?
No.
The Court decided the federal preemption issue. It reversed the Seventh Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Are freight brokers now automatically liable for carrier accidents?
No.
A plaintiff must still prove the required elements of a state-law negligence claim, including any applicable duty, breach, causation, and damages.
The rules and defenses may vary by state.
Did Montgomery create a carrier-vetting checklist?
No.
The Court did not specify mandatory databases, monitoring frequency, disqualifying thresholds, or documentation periods.
Does Montgomery apply directly to shippers?
The Court did not decide a claim against a shipper.
Shipper liability can depend on state law, contract terms, the shipper's role in selecting the carrier, and the facts of the transaction.
What FMCSA information can a broker or shipper review?
Public FMCSA resources can provide carrier identity, operating status, authority and insurance filings, inspection and out-of-service summaries, crash data, and safety ratings when available.
The information requires context and should be used as part of a broader qualification process.
Should shippers update their freight broker contracts?
The decision is a reasonable trigger for legal review.
Carrier-selection obligations, indemnification, insurance, re-brokering restrictions, record retention, and audit rights should reflect the actual relationship and risk allocation.
Does the ruling change cargo-loss liability?
No.
The case involved bodily injury and alleged negligent hiring.
It did not decide cargo-loss or cargo-damage claims.
Sources
U.S. Supreme Court — Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 24-1238
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration — Company Safety Records
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration — Licensing and Insurance