The Supreme Court's Montgomery Decision: What Brokers, Carriers, and Shippers Should Know

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that freight brokers can be sued in state court when they're accused of hiring an unsafe carrier. The Court found that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) — the federal law brokers have long relied on to block these lawsuits — doesn't apply when safety is the issue. The decision resolves a long-standing split among federal courts and changes the landscape for brokers, carriers, and the shippers who rely on them.

We're sharing this as your insurance and risk advisors - not as legal experts. For legal guidance, please work with your attorney. Our goal here is to help you understand what the ruling does, what it doesn't do, and where to focus your attention in the weeks ahead.

Background on the Case

Truck driver Shawn Montgomery was severely injured — including the amputation of his leg — when a tractor-trailer hauling plastic pots veered off course in Illinois and struck his stopped vehicle. The trucking company involved, Caribe Transport II, had been hired by C.H. Robinson, one of the country's largest freight brokers. According to the opinion, Caribe Transport had a "conditional" safety rating from federal regulators at the time, with documented deficiencies in driver qualifications, hours of service, inspection and maintenance, and crash rates.

Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson for negligent hiring, arguing the broker knew — or should have known — that hiring a carrier with that safety record was likely to result in a crash. C.H. Robinson argued the claim was preempted by the FAAAA. Federal courts had been split on the question for years, with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits allowing such claims to proceed, and the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits dismissing them. The Supreme Court took the case to resolve that split.

What the Court Decided

The FAAAA preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of a broker or carrier, but contains a safety exception that preserves states' authority to regulate safety "with respect to motor vehicles." The Court was asked whether negligent-hiring claims against a broker fall within that exception.

The answer was yes, unanimously. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the Court, reasoned that requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier "concerns motor vehicles" — most obviously the trucks that will move the goods. That brings the claim within the safety exception and out of preemption.

Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence, joined by Justice Alito, agreed with the result but added important context. He noted the ruling "should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents." Brokers who exercise reasonable care and document their carrier selection decisions remain well-positioned to defend claims.

What This Means Practically

The legal standard going forward is ordinary care — the same standard that already applies to motor carriers and most other businesses. The question a court will ask is whether the broker acted reasonably in selecting the carrier: Did they review available safety data? Did they have a documented vetting process? Did they identify and address red flags?

A few points worth flagging:

• Brokers will face increased scrutiny on their carrier-vetting processes, including the documentation behind those decisions.

• Carriers with weaker safety profiles — elevated CSA scores, conditional ratings, recent enforcement actions — may find brokers more selective about hiring them.

• Shippers who rely on brokers should expect updated contract language around carrier selection, indemnification, and insurance requirements.

• Insurance underwriters will be evaluating broker accounts under a different lens, and legal analysts are already flagging insurance and indemnity questions as areas to watch.

What to Focus On

If you're a freight broker:

Review your carrier-vetting process. If it's not documented, document it. If it is, make sure it reflects current FMCSA data sources, the criteria you apply, and how you handle red flags.

Pull together a record of past vetting decisions — what data you reviewed, what you decided, and when.

Talk to your insurance broker about whether your current liability coverage responds to a negligent-selection claim.

If you're a motor carrier:

Pull your FMCSA SAFER data and review it the way a broker — or a plaintiff's attorney — would.

Address out-of-service violations, inspection issues, and open enforcement actions proactively.

Treat CSA scores as a business priority. Brokers under new liability pressure will increasingly steer freight to carriers they can defensibly select.

If you're a shipper:

Review your transportation contracts. Indemnification language, insurance requirements, and carrier-selection standards may need updating.

Ask your broker partners about their vetting process — and document what you require.

Confirm your own contingent auto and contingent cargo coverage is adequate.

Looking Ahead

The first wave of post-Montgomery negligent-hiring suits is expected within weeks, and the insurance market will take time to respond. Carrier vetting standards, contract language, and broker liability coverage are all likely to evolve over the coming months.

The Court's ruling didn't create a new duty — the duty to exercise reasonable care in selecting a carrier has existed for generations under common law. What changed is that the federal procedural shield is no longer available. Brokers, like carriers and shippers before them, are now accountable for that duty in court.

If you have questions about how this ruling affects your business, your Cottingham & Butler team is ready to talk through it alongside your legal counsel.