Brace for Impact: The Floodgates Have Opened in Trucking Litigation

By Kiersan S. Lockard, Carr Allison | May 14, 2026

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238 (U.S. May 14, 2026), the Supreme Court delivered a decision that transportation brokers and their insurers have been dreading—that negligent hiring claims against brokers are not preempted by federal law. Specifically, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (“FAAAA”) safety exception [49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A)] preserves state law negligent hiring claims against brokers, and thus that the FAAAA's broad preemption provision, which had long served as a shield for brokers, does not block state law claims alleging that a broker selected a carrier it knew was unsafe.

Justice Barrett, writing for the unanimous Court, framed the analysis in terms of giving the subject statutory language its “ordinary meaning.” To this end, Justice Barrett explained that the FAAAA's safety exception preserves state laws “with respect to motor vehicles”— and a claim that a broker selected a motor carrier with a known substandard safety record plainly “concerns” motor vehicles within the safety exception's reach. The Court brushed aside warnings that this interpretation would effectively swallow up the preemption provision, citing to the fact that state laws directed to carrier prices, routes, and services with no safety nexus remain firmly preempted. Justice Kavanaugh, concurring with Justice Alito, was notably less resolute in the Court’s position. He acknowledged the case was “closer than the Court’s opinion perhaps might suggest” and offered the candid warning that “state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits,” with those costs ultimately “cascad[ing] through the economy” to consumers.

What does this mean? For carriers, brokers, and their insurers, the anticipated effect is not only significant but also immediate. With preemption off the table, expect brokers to be targeted. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will likely name brokers as extra deep-pocket defendants in every trucking accident case they can. Simply put, the threshold defense that had allowed brokers in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits to exit cases through dispositive motions is no more.

Additionally, discovery in trucking matters may now become significantly broader. Plaintiffs will likely claim that information that was previously “off the table”—i.e., brokers’ carrier selection files, internal communications, hiring practices, and other vetting procedures—is now fair game. Be prepared for plaintiffs’ counsel to nitpick through each and every memorandum, report, spreadsheet, and email for even the slightest shred of evidence that a broker opted for cost savings over safety.

Bottom line up front for brokers—evaluate your carrier selection protocols NOW. Institute comprehensive carrier vetting protocols immediately and maintain detailed records memorializing adherence to same, keeping in mind that these protocols will be viewed in light of a state law duty of “reasonable care.” Expect any documentation gaps to be highlighted at trial. Also, as multi-party discovery becomes the rule rather than the exception, be prepared for litigation costs to rise considerably, which will inevitably translate into higher insurance premiums. This trend may also drive plaintiffs’ settlement demands upward and result in a greater number of cases reaching the trial stage. The overall costs of trucking litigation just went up—and, not just for brokers, but for EVERYONE!

Save the Date!

The TIDA Annual Seminar is the premier industry event of the year featuring a program of impactful educational sessions, networking and social events, and unique opportunities to discuss real-time issues affecting the trucking defense industry. Attendee and exhibitor registration and sponsorship opportunities open in late May 2026.