blog
By: Ross Karsnitz, Keith Donovan and Matt Fogg
The U.S. Supreme Court has now answered the question we addressed in our prior article on freight broker liability and serious truck collisions: whether federal law prevents injured people from bringing state-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers.
In a unanimous decision issued on May 14, 2026, the court held that a personal injury claim alleging a freight broker negligently hired a trucking company to transport goods is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act ("FAAAA") because states retain safety authority “with respect to motor vehicles.”
The ruling reverses the Seventh Circuit and allows Shawn Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim against freight broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. to proceed. Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson knew, or should have known, that the carrier it selected had safety concerns that made a serious collision reasonably likely.
The case centered on the FAAAA, a federal law that generally preempts state laws related to the prices, routes, and services of motor carriers and brokers. But the statute includes an important safety exception: federal preemption does not restrict a state’s safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles.
The Supreme Court held that negligent-hiring claims like Montgomery’s fall within that safety exception. The court reasoned that requiring a broker to use ordinary care when selecting a carrier concerns motor vehicles because the selected trucks will be used to transport goods in vehicles on state roads. This seems self-evident, however, it demonstrates the lengths insurance carriers and defendants will go to avoid liability.
A broker is not automatically liable simply because it arranged transportation involving a collision. The Supreme Court's decision means that, when the facts support a negligent-selection claim, a freight broker cannot rely on federal preemption alone to avoid responsibility under state law.
Truck collision cases often involve more than the driver behind the wheel. A serious injury may require investigation into the driver, the motor carrier, the truck, maintenance records, safety history, hours-of-service compliance, cargo issues, insurance coverage, and the companies involved in arranging the shipment.
This decision confirms that, in appropriate cases, the investigation may also include the freight broker’s role in selecting the carrier.
Freight brokers occupy a significant role in the commercial trucking system. According to the Court, approximately 28,000 brokers arrange transportation for about one-third of all freight shipped in the United States, working with more than 780,000 carriers.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, wrote separately to explain why the case was close but ultimately favored allowing state tort claims against brokers. His concurrence is important because it addresses both sides of the issue.
On the safety side, Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that the FAAAA was an economic deregulation statute, not a safety deregulation statute. He wrote that it would be difficult to read the law as allowing state tort suits against trucking companies while categorically insulating upstream brokers who negligently select unsafe carriers.
He also pointed to a significant regulatory gap. Federal law requires brokers to select a federally registered carrier, but it does not otherwise impose meaningful safety standards on broker hiring. In his words, the statute should not be read to allow brokers to operate in a safety “black hole.”
At the same time, the concurrence cautioned against taking the decision too far. Justice Kavanaugh noted that brokers should be able to defend these claims when they acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. He also recognized that litigation and insurance costs may increase and may affect the broader economy.
The decision preserves an important path for injured people, but it does not create automatic liability. A negligent-selection claim still requires proof that the broker failed to act reasonably in selecting the carrier and that the failure caused harm.
For Delaware drivers, passengers, workers, and families, the decision reinforces an important point: a trucking investigation should not stop with the driver.
In our prior article, we explained that serious truck-related injuries may involve multiple responsible parties, including the driver, motor carrier, maintenance providers, cargo handlers, shippers, and brokers. Montgomery does not change the need to examine each potentially responsible party. It confirms that federal law does not automatically block negligent-hiring claims against brokers when those claims fall within the statute’s safety exception.
Delaware’s own traffic data underscores why these issues matter. In 2024, Delaware recorded 2,245 truck-involved collisions, including 12 fatal collisions, 529 injuries, and 12 deaths. The state also reported 27,660 total traffic collisions, resulting in 132 deaths and 7,626 injuries.
Delaware’s location within the regional freight network means a serious trucking-related injury may involve out-of-state companies, records, witnesses, and insurance coverage. Early investigation helps identify the parties involved and preserve evidence before critical information becomes harder to obtain.
After a collision involving a tractor-trailer, box truck, commercial van, or other commercial vehicle, key questions may include:
These questions are important because the records needed to understand what happened are often held by the companies involved, not by the injured person or their family.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery does not impose automatic responsibility on freight brokers whenever a selected carrier is involved in a collision. It confirms that federal law does not automatically bar negligent-selection claims against brokers when the facts support them.
For injured people, the ruling preserves an important path to investigate whether a serious truck-related injury was caused not only by what happened on the road, but also by decisions made before the truck ever began the trip.
For more information or to discuss your claim, contact us online or call 302.655.2599.
In a unanimous decision issued on May 14, 2026, the court held that a claim alleging one company negligently hired another to transport goods is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act because states retain safety authority “with respect to motor vehicles.”
