The world of commercial trucking litigation just got bigger. On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, greenlighted negligent hiring and negligent selection claims against freight brokers concerning safety. The decision raises immediate questions for brokers, carriers, and their defense teams: What does the Court’s holding mean? Where are the limitations? And what should defense counsel be doing in early motion practice, discovery, and case framing?
In Montgomery County v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, the High Court opened the door to state law negligence claims against the “transportation industry’s matchmakers,” also known as brokers, in a ruling that is expected to enlarge litigation parties. As a practical matter, plaintiffs’ lawyers will increasingly treat brokers as standard defendants in serious-injury trucking cases.
Case Timeline
By way of background, sellers of freight routinely use commercial motor carriers to move their freight from Point A to Point B. But with the high demand for transportation and the time required to vet and select a motor carrier, many sellers have turned to and relied on freight brokers to do it for them. Before the opinion, state court lawsuits against brokers were removed to federal court, and some were dismissed on grounds of federal preemption as there was a split among the circuits.
Now, the brokers face liability for their performance. Justice Barrett authored the 9-0 opinion. The Court held that brokers can be sued in state or federal court under a denoted exception to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (“FAAAA”) preemption clause, that is, claims that concern safety in the transportation of goods.
Justice Kavanaugh, who joined and concurred in the opinion, stated, “I agree that the [FAAAA] does not preempt state court suits against brokers who negligently arrange truck transportation with an unsafe carrier.”
Brokers can no longer rely on the FAAAA preemption clause to defeat state court lawsuits and obtain dismissal of lawsuits alleging bodily injury from a commercial motor vehicle accident. Not surprisingly, the federal circuits have been divided over whether the safety exception permits negligent hiring claims against brokers. The Supreme Court’s opinion settles the issue for all 50 states and U.S territories.
Risk Management and Litigation Strategy: What to Do Now
Lawsuits against brokers are expected to increase immediately. Statistics show that brokers arrange about one third of all freight shipped in the United States. The Supreme Court’s opinion may reduce that percentage as prospective brokers may decline the work. Time will tell.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys will take advantage of this new source of damages and increase their pleaded amounts in controversy. Cases on appeal in which a suit against a broker was dismissed under the FAAAA are likely to be reversed. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will invariably consider naming brokers as traditional defendants, along with the likes of the motor carrier and driver.
Juries will now consider the propriety of the broker’s selection process and evaluate its liability and determination of responsibility among the plaintiff, the motor carrier, and the commercial driver. The standard would be negligence, that is, whether the broker acted with ordinary care in its hiring of the motor carrier. Plaintiffs will still have to prove that the broker’s negligence, if any, was a proximate cause of the accident.
In some instances, it may facilitate finger pointing among the defendants, determining who is at fault. This only benefits the plaintiff, so it is important that brokers and motor carriers remain united where possible, though there may be occasions where unity is not beneficial to either.
Immediate Action Items for Brokers
If you are a broker, take heed and make sure you properly vet the motor carrier. Research the motor carrier’s safety rating, its accident history, its record of out-of-service violations, the status of its licensure, and its litigation history. Make sure you carry liability insurance for your brokerage services.
Brokers should establish clear, written guidelines for the vetting of carriers. That way, your defense counsel is better equipped to present the jury with all due diligence you undertook. The standard is not perfection. It is not strict liability, but reasonable care measured by what a broker exercising ordinary caution would have done under the same or similar circumstances.
Brokers will have the traditional affirmative defenses, such as contributory negligence, new and independent cause, sole proximate cause, sudden emergency, and unavoidable accident. Assumedly, the broker’s liability will be derivative of the motor carrier’s or its driver’s negligence. Where neither of them was negligent, the broker should likewise be found not at fault.
What This Ruling Doesn’t Do—and Where to Keep Fighting
The Court’s ruling is limited. “The safety exception saves only a subset of preempted claims: those involving regulations concerning motor vehicle safety.” Caribe, at P6, Paragraph III. State law claims against brokers concerning pricing, routing, cargo loss, freight damage, or delay should remain preempted.
We expect plaintiffs’ attorneys to try to get around this limitation by alleging that the delivery route was unsafe and required the driver to cross roads not intended for commercial transportation. In response, defense counsel should press early to separate true safety-based allegations from relabeled service claims. Where the theory is really about logistics, scheduling, or customer requirements, the preemption argument remains strong, particularly at the motion-to-dismiss and summary-judgment stages.
The bottom line: this decision expands exposure for brokers in a limited category of cases, but it also preserves meaningful preemption defenses when plaintiffs attempt to stretch the safety exception beyond its intended scope.
