Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II:
What Every Freight Broker Must Know

On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision that permanently changed the legal landscape for every freight broker in America. The shield that protected brokers from state-law negligence claims is gone. Here is what happened, and what you need to do now.

The Accident That Changed Everything

It started on an Illinois highway. Shawn Montgomery had pulled his tractor-trailer onto the shoulder of the road when a driver employed by carrier Caribe Transport II veered off the road and struck him. Montgomery lost his leg.

In addition to suing the driver and Caribe Transport II, Montgomery sued freight broker C.H. Robinson, one of the largest freight brokerages in the world, arguing that C.H. Robinson had negligently selected a carrier it knew, or should have known, posed a safety risk.

C.H. Robinson's defense was straightforward: federal law bars the claim. Specifically, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of any motor carrier or broker. C.H. Robinson argued that a negligent hiring claim is exactly that kind of state law, and therefore federally preempted. That argument had worked in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court disagreed.

What the Supreme Court Held

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that negligent hiring claims against freight brokers fall within the FAAAA's safety exception and therefore are not preempted by federal law.

"Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore 'concerns' motor vehicles, most obviously the trucks that will transport the goods. So Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA's safety exception, which saves it from preemption."

The Court's reasoning was direct: when a broker selects a carrier, that selection determines which trucks will be on the road. A state law requiring brokers to exercise ordinary care in that selection is therefore a safety regulation concerning motor vehicles, exactly what the FAAAA's safety exception was designed to preserve.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred, joined by Justice Alito. While agreeing with the outcome, Kavanaugh acknowledged the ruling would create real costs for brokers, including higher litigation exposure and higher insurance premiums, but concluded those were concerns for Congress, not the courts. His concurrence also offered brokers a roadmap: "The broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier."

What Changed, and What Didn't

What Brokers Must Do Now

The ruling does not require perfection. It requires reasonable, documented diligence. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence made clear that a broker who asks the hard questions and documents the answers is in a fundamentally different legal position than one who does not. Here is what that looks like in practice:

The Documentation Problem Most Brokers Have

The GRSM legal team identified a critical downstream risk in their post-ruling analysis: the broker's documentation is only as good as the process that created it. If a broker can demonstrate that it followed an established, documented vetting process through a reputable platform, that will help its defense. But if that platform failed to flag a dangerous carrier, provided incomplete safety information, or missed red flags that reasonable diligence would have caught, those platforms could find themselves drawn into the litigation alongside the brokers that relied on them.

This creates a new standard for what a vetting record needs to contain. It is not enough to show that you ran a carrier through a system. You need to show what the system checked, what it found, when it found it, and that the output was reviewed and approved by a responsible person before dispatch. That record is your evidence of reasonable diligence. Without it, you are exposed.

What This Means for Independent and Small Brokerages

Large brokerages like C.H. Robinson have compliance teams, legal departments, and enterprise vetting platforms. They will adapt. The greater risk falls on the independent broker and the small brokerage, the majority of the 17,000+ licensed freight brokers in the United States, who may not have the systems, the staff, or the awareness to respond to this ruling.

The ruling does not distinguish between a $10 billion brokerage and a two-person shop. If you are a licensed freight broker and you select a carrier that causes an accident, you can be named as a defendant in a state court negligence action. The question is whether you can produce evidence that your selection was reasonable. If you cannot, you are in the same position as C.H. Robinson was before this ruling, except without the legal resources to fight it.