Montgomery v. Caribe Transport: what the broker ruling means for carriers

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that freight brokers can be sued under state law for hiring an unsafe carrier. The decision came down on May 14, 2026, and it removes the main legal shield brokers used to get crash lawsuits thrown out early. For carriers, it means two things: if you broker or co-broker loads, this risk is now yours too, and every broker you haul for will vet you harder.

Here is what changed, what did not, and what to do about it this month.

The crash behind the case

The case started with a 2017 crash in Illinois. Shawn Montgomery's tractor-trailer was stopped on the side of the road when another truck hit it. That truck was hauling plastic pots for Caribe Transport II, a motor carrier. Montgomery's leg had to be amputated.

C.H. Robinson, one of the largest freight brokers in the country, had booked the load with Caribe. Montgomery sued the driver, the carrier and the broker. His claim against the broker was simple: it should have known Caribe was a risky choice. According to SCOTUSblog's report on the ruling, federal regulators had given Caribe a "conditional" safety rating when it was hired, with problems in areas like driver qualification, hours of service and crash rates.

The trial court threw out the claim against the broker, and the Seventh Circuit appeals court agreed. Other federal appeals courts had gone the other way, so the rule depended on where you were sued. The Supreme Court took the case to settle it.

What the Supreme Court decided

The vote was unanimous. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion of the Court, now in the official U.S. Reports preliminary print. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, agreeing with the result.

The fight was over the FAAAA (the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994). That law stops states from making rules "related to" the prices, routes or services of carriers, brokers and freight forwarders. For years, brokers argued that a lawsuit over how they picked a carrier was really a lawsuit about their "service," so federal law blocked it.

But the FAAAA has a safety exception. It says the law "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles." The Court said a broker's duty to use care when it picks a carrier is about motor vehicles, most obviously the trucks that will move the freight. So the negligent-hiring claim fits inside the safety exception and is not blocked.

In plain words: brokers can no longer win these cases on day one just by pointing to federal law. The case goes forward and gets decided on the facts.

Why the safety exception matters so much

Before this ruling, the preemption defence ended many suits before anyone looked at how the broker chose the carrier. No discovery. No questions about what the broker checked. Now those questions get asked.

As CCJ reported, brokers can no longer lean on a carrier's federal registration alone as a defence. Justice Kavanaugh also pointed out in his concurrence, available in full from Cornell's Legal Information Institute, that federal broker rules mostly cover money matters, not safety. That means there is no single federal checklist that tells a broker "do this and you're safe." The standard of care will be worked out under each state's law.

What the ruling does not do

This is not automatic or strict liability. A broker is not on the hook for every crash a hired truck is in.

An injured person still has to prove the normal parts of a negligence claim:

• The broker owed a duty to use reasonable care in picking the carrier.
• The broker failed that duty, meaning choosing that carrier was unreasonable given the safety information it had, or should have had, at the time.
• That failure caused the crash and the injuries.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that brokers should be able to defend these suits if they acted reasonably and used reputable trucking companies. The ruling also does not open up every claim against brokers. State claims about prices, routes or services that have nothing to do with safety are still blocked.

The ruling dealt with a broker. Trade press coverage, including FreightWaves' report on the decision, says the same reasoning reaches 3PLs and other intermediaries that pick carriers.

Before and after the ruling

Issue	Before Montgomery	After Montgomery (as of November 2026)
Can a broker be sued for picking an unsafe carrier?	Depended on the court. Some blocked these claims under the FAAAA.	Yes, nationwide, under state negligence law.
Early dismissal using the FAAAA	Often worked in some courts	No longer works for safety-based hiring claims
Automatic liability for brokers	No	Still no. Duty, breach and causation must be proven.
What decides the case	Often the preemption question	Whether the carrier choice was reasonable based on info at the time
Federal registration alone as a defence	Often enough to end the case early	Not enough. Records of what was checked matter.
Carriers that broker or co-broker loads	Same shield as other brokers	Same exposure as other brokers
What brokers ask of carriers	Often a quick authority and insurance check	Safety rating, CSA BASICs, inspections, crash history, insurance and authority, often monitored over time

If you broker or co-broker loads, this is your risk now

Plenty of asset-based carriers also hold broker authority. You cover overflow freight with partner carriers. You hand a load to a buddy's fleet when your trucks are full. You run a small brokerage next to your trucks.

In each of those deals, you are the broker. If the carrier you picked causes a serious crash, you can be named in the suit, and "federal law protects brokers" is no longer an answer.

What to put in place:

1. Write down your carrier selection rules. For example: active authority, insurance at or above your required limits, no "unsatisfactory" rating, and a review step for "conditional" ratings or high BASIC scores.
2. Check every carrier at booking, not just at setup. A carrier that was fine in March may have lost insurance by June.
3. Save proof of what you checked and when. A screenshot or saved report dated the day you booked is the record a lawyer will ask for.
4. Watch your carriers over time. Set alerts for insurance cancellations, authority changes and new out-of-service orders.
5. Fix your contracts. Review indemnity terms (who pays if something goes wrong) and insurance requirements in your broker-carrier agreements with a lawyer.
6. Talk to your insurance agent. Ask whether your policy covers broker liability and contingent auto liability, and what your insurer now expects for vetting.

The key test in these cases is what you knew, or should have known, at the time. If you can't show what you checked, it is hard to prove you were careful.

Why every carrier should expect tougher vetting

Even if you never broker a load, this ruling lands on your desk. A broker's best defence now is showing it made a careful choice. To build that defence, they will ask more of you.

Expect brokers to look at:

• Your safety rating. Caribe's "conditional" rating was the heart of this case. Some brokers may now pass on conditional carriers or add extra review.
• Your CSA BASIC scores. These are FMCSA's measures in areas like Unsafe Driving, Hours-of-Service Compliance, Vehicle Maintenance and Crash Indicator.
• Inspections and out-of-service rates. Recent roadside results count.
• Crash history. Especially recent crashes.
• Insurance and authority. Limits, active status, and how long you've had your authority.

Carrier vetting was a main topic at industry events after the ruling. FreightWaves covered a Texas cross-border trade summit where the ruling and vetting rules were front and centre. The ripple effect on rates, load access and the way brokers pick partners is part of the bigger shift we covered in how the broker-carrier relationship is changing.

Canadian carriers: the ruling is US law, so it does not change anything in Canada. But if your trucks haul US freight for US brokers, they will vet you on your US DOT safety data just like a US fleet. If you run cross-border, your US record is now a sales tool. Our cross-border trucking software page covers how to keep both sides of the border organized.

How to keep your safety record clean and ready to show

Your safety record is now part of your sales pitch. Treat it that way.

Check your own data every month. Look at your FMCSA safety data the way a broker would. Don't wait for a broker to tell you a BASIC jumped.

Challenge wrong data. If an inspection or crash on your record is wrong, or wasn't your truck, file a challenge through FMCSA's DataQs system. Bad data that sits there hurts you every time a broker checks.

Keep your filings current. Update your MCS-150 (your company's registration info with FMCSA) when it's due, every two years. Keep proof of insurance current with every broker you work with.

Fix the problems behind the scores. Common causes of bad BASIC numbers include logbook mistakes, driver files with gaps, and maintenance defects found at roadside inspections. Clean driver files and on-time maintenance go straight at those causes. Tying repairs to dispatch so a truck with an open defect doesn't get sent out is what our fleet maintenance software page is about. For the deadlines that slip most often, see the compliance clock: what fleets miss and what it costs them.

Build a one-page safety packet. Your rating, your current BASIC status, insurance limits, authority date, and what you've fixed since your last bad inspection. When a broker asks, send it in five minutes. Fleets that answer fast and clean look like the big carriers.

Keeping tabs on the carriers you hire

If you broker or co-broker loads, the hardest part is keeping up with dozens of carriers whose status changes without warning. TorqueAI tracks every carrier you work with: their insurance and operating authority come up automatically, you can see their crash history, and you get alerted when something changes.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Talk to a lawyer about your own contracts and risk.