Beyond the Trucking Company: When the Freight Broker Is Also to Blame

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

As of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2026 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, state-law negligent-selection claims against freight brokers are not barred by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s preemption provision when they concern motor-vehicle safety. The federal preemption ruling applies nationwide, including in Missouri and Kansas, but whether a particular broker can be held liable still depends on the negligence law of the state governing the claim and the facts of the carrier-selection process. Broker liability can matter because it may add another potentially responsible party and another possible source of insurance or assets.

As of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in May 2026, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not automatically block state-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers when those claims concern motor-vehicle safety. For years, brokers argued that the federal trucking-deregulation law preempted this type of lawsuit, while federal courts disagreed over whether the Act’s motor-vehicle safety exception allowed the claims to proceed.

The Supreme Court resolved that federal preemption question in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC. The ruling applies nationwide, including in Missouri and Kansas, but it does not make every broker liable when a carrier causes a crash. An injured person must still establish a negligent-selection claim under the law governing the case, including the broker’s failure to use reasonable care in selecting the carrier and the required connection between that failure and the resulting injury.

What Does a Freight Broker Actually Do?

A freight broker doesn't own trucks, employ drivers, or haul freight itself. It's a middleman: a shipper needs cargo moved, and the broker finds and arranges for a motor carrier to move it, earning a fee for the match. Large national brokers coordinate an enormous volume of freight this way, and in doing so, they have access to the same federal safety data on a motor carrier, crash history, out-of-service rates, and safety rating, that anyone else can pull from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration before deciding who to hire for a load.

What Is a “Negligent Hiring” or “Negligent Selection” Claim Against a Broker?

This theory doesn't argue that the broker caused the crash directly. The theory argues that the broker failed to use reasonable care in selecting a competent carrier, that the broker knew or should have known of the carrier’s relevant safety deficiencies, and that the negligent selection contributed to the crash and resulting injury.

To succeed, an injured person generally has to show the broker knew, or should have known through reasonably available information, that the carrier it selected posed an unreasonable safety risk, for example, a conditional safety rating, an out-of-service order, or documented safety information showing serious driver-qualification, hours-of-service or maintenance violations, or crash concerns.

Didn't Federal Law Used to Block These Claims?

For years, many brokers successfully argued exactly that. The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 broadly preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service” of a broker, and several federal appeals courts, including the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, held that a negligent-hiring claim against a broker was preempted under that language. Other courts, including the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, disagreed, holding that these claims fell within a specific exception preserving a state's authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles.” That left the answer to “can you sue the broker” depending heavily on which part of the country the case was filed in.

How Did the Supreme Court Resolve This?

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, decided May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved the federal circuit split. The case involved a man who suffered severe, permanent injuries after a truck arranged by a freight broker struck his stopped vehicle. He alleged that the broker negligently selected a motor carrier with a conditional federal safety rating and documented concerns involving driver qualifications, hours-of-service compliance, and vehicle maintenance.

The Court held that, even assuming the FAAAA’s general preemption provision would otherwise cover the negligent-hiring claim, the Act’s motor-vehicle safety exception saves this type of claim from federal preemption. The decision removed that FAAAA preemption barrier nationwide, allowing state-law negligent-hiring claims of this type to proceed when they concern motor-vehicle safety.

The ruling does not mean a freight broker is automatically liable whenever a selected carrier causes a crash. An injured person must still prove the required elements of the negligent-selection claim under the state law governing the case.

Does This Mean Every Broker Claim Automatically Wins?

No. The Supreme Court’s decision means the FAAAA does not preempt state-law negligent-hiring claims of this type when they concern motor-vehicle safety. It does not mean every freight broker that arranges a shipment involved in a crash is liable.

An injured person must still prove the elements required by the state law governing the claim. That may include showing that the broker failed to use reasonable care when selecting the carrier, that the broker knew or should have known of safety concerns relevant to the carrier’s ability to perform the work safely, and that the broker’s negligent selection caused or contributed to the resulting injury. A broker may still defend the claim by presenting evidence about its carrier-selection process and the information reasonably available when the carrier was chosen.

The Montgomery decision is also limited to state tort duties concerning motor-vehicle safety. It did not eliminate FAAAA preemption for unrelated state regulation of a broker’s prices, routes, or services.

Why Does Broker Liability Matter So Much in Practice?

Broker liability can matter because it may add another potentially responsible party and another possible source of insurance or assets. Our overview of what happens when damages exceed a trucking company's insurance policy limits explains why available coverage can become especially important in a severe injury case.

Motor carriers are subject to federal financial-responsibility requirements, but the required amount varies by the type of operation and cargo. Freight brokers operate under a different financial-responsibility system: they generally must maintain a $75,000 bond or trust fund, and that security is designed to protect carriers and shippers in the broker relationship rather than to serve as bodily-injury liability coverage.

Some brokers also carry separate commercial liability or errors-and-omissions coverage, but the amount and scope can vary widely. That is why identifying every liable party and every potentially available source of coverage can be an important part of the investigation rather than focusing only on the driver and motor carrier.

What Evidence Supports a Broker Negligent-Hiring Claim?

A broker negligent-hiring claim often turns on what the broker knew or reasonably should have known about the carrier when it made the selection. Evidence showing what information was available and how the broker evaluated it can help establish whether the selection process was reasonable.

• FMCSA safety information. The carrier’s formal safety rating, operating authority, inspection and out-of-service history, crash data, and relevant Safety Measurement System performance information available when the broker selected it. SMS data are not themselves a federal safety rating and should be considered in context.
• The broker’s carrier-vetting records. Internal files may show what information the broker reviewed, what screening criteria it applied, and whether any safety concerns were identified before the carrier was selected.
• The carrier’s safety history. Prior crashes, inspection results, out-of-service violations, and documented driver or vehicle safety problems may help show what information was reasonably available when the selection was made.
• Communications about the shipment. Emails, messages, dispatch records, and other communications between the broker, carrier, and shipper may provide evidence about how and why the carrier was chosen.
• Carrier-selection practices. Testimony from a qualified transportation-safety or brokerage professional may help explain what a reasonably careful broker would have reviewed before selecting the carrier.

Preserving this kind of evidence early matters, particularly because some internal dispatch and safety records may otherwise be deleted or overwritten under routine record-retention practices.

What Should You Do If a Broker Might Be Involved?

Ask early who arranged the shipment. The broker’s identity may not appear on the crash report and may instead need to be traced through bills of lading, dispatch records, contracts, invoices, or information obtained from the motor carrier or shipper. Identifying the broker promptly can also help preserve carrier-selection records and communications that may become important to the claim.

Keep in mind that comparative fault and other fault-allocation rules can affect how responsibility is divided among the broker, carrier, driver, and other parties. Those rules differ between Missouri and Kansas, so a broker’s potential share of responsibility must be evaluated under the law governing the particular case.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision removed a significant federal preemption barrier, but it did not eliminate the need to prove a negligent-selection claim under applicable state law. An attorney familiar with truck accident litigation can investigate the broker’s role, determine what carrier-safety information was available when the shipment was arranged, and evaluate which parties may bear responsibility for the crash.