A motorist was severely injured in an Illinois roadside crash after his tractor trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena (“Vearela-Mojena”). Varella-Mojena was driving a load for Caribe Transport II, LLC, a motor carrier. A transportation broker (C.H. Robinson), coordinated the shipment. Plaintiff sued alleging, inter alia, that C.H. Robinson was liable because it negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe Transport. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the broker on the basis that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts state law claims against transportation brokers for negligent hiring/selection. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act safety exception permits negligent-hiring claims against brokers.
In a 9-0 opinion by Justice Barrett, the Court held that state negligent-hiring claims against brokers fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception (49 U.S.C. Section 14501(c)(2)(A)) and are not preempted, reversing the 7th Circuit and remanding the case to the district court. The FAAAA’s safety exception preserves a State’s “safety regulatory authority … with respect to motor vehicles,” and common-law duties, including negligent hiring, are part of that authority. A claim is “with respect to motor vehicles” if it concerns vehicles used in transportation, requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a motor carrier concerns the trucks that will transport the goods. The Court rejected arguments that this reading swallows preemption or creates impermissible surplusage, and held that textual differences with subsection (b) do not justify excluding brokers from the safety exception.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, concurred, characterizing the case as close but concluding that the Act’s economic deregulation did not silently eliminate state tort suits against brokers for negligent selection. He noted anomalies and context favoring brokers (no broker-specific insurance mandate; intrastate preemption), but emphasized the lack of meaningful federal safety regulation of broker selection and the role of tort law in deterring unsafe carriers . He also underscored that brokers acting reasonably should often defeat liability, with proximate cause doctrines providing additional protection.
Before this decision, the federal circuits were split on whether the FAAAA preempted state negligent hiring claims. Last year, the Sixth Circuit held in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc. that the FAAAA does not preempt negligent hiring claims against transportation brokers. This decision was contrary to the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Montgomery aligns with the Sixth Circuit’s approach and abrogates contrary decisions, resolving the split and providing nationwide clarity.
Practically, this means transportation brokers must reassess their motor carrier vetting protocols, including how safety ratings and crash histories are reviewed, escalated, and documented. Brokers and motor carriers alike would be wise to take this opportunity to review existing contracts for risk transfer and allocation provisions, and reevaluate the adequacy of insurance coverage. Practitioners can expect discovery on broker selection files, practices, and communications, and should work with broker clients to build defensible documentation showing reasonable diligence and criteria applied to carrier choice.
