When a catastrophic accident or loss occurs, freight brokers have become the target of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for negligently selecting the motor carrier who was involved in the loss.
On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving a critical issue for freight transportation that is the current subject of a split among federal appeals courts—whether federal law preempts state law negligent selection claims against freight brokers. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053 (7th Cir. 2025), cert. granted.
Freight brokers are intermediaries in the transportation industry. Shippers hire freight brokers to arrange for the transportation of the shipper’s goods. Freight brokers do not transport goods or own or operate motor vehicles. Instead, brokers arrange for motor carriers to transport the goods. Under federal law, the motor carrier is required to provide the motor vehicle and select one of its employees to transport the shipper’s goods. When a catastrophic accident or loss occurs, freight brokers have become the target of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for negligently selecting the motor carrier who was involved in the loss.
The federal law at issue—the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA)—preempts state laws relating to the service of freight brokers with respect to the transportation of property. At the same time, a provision commonly known as the “safety exception” preserves “the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” All federal courts of appeals that have addressed FAAAA preemption have agreed that negligent selection claims fall within the preemptive scope of the FAAAA.
But the courts of appeals are divided on whether the safety exception saves negligent selection claims from preemption. The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have determined the safety exception does not apply because brokers do not operate motor vehicles and their services are not directly related to “motor vehicles.” Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023); Aspen v. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023); Gauthier v. Hard to Stop LLC, 2024 WL 3338944 (11th Cir. July 9, 2024). Under the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit’s analysis, negligent selection claims are preempted by federal law and not subject to the safety exception. On the other hand, the Ninth and Sixth Circuit have applied the safety exception to allow negligent selection claims to proceed, holding that the selection of a motor carrier by a freight broker is genuinely responsive to safety concerns. Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2020); Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, 2025 WL 1878770, at *4-5 (6th Cir. July 8, 2025).
Previously, the Supreme Court declined to address the issue and denied petitions for certiorari filed in Gauthier, Ye and Miller. But the Sixth’s Circuit decision this year in Cox deepened the circuit split and created a scenario where four courts of appeals were equally divided on the application of the safety exception. Federal district courts and state courts were further divided on the scope of the safety exception. Practically, brokers faced an uncertain environment as to the standard that would govern their operations, and the viability of a negligent selection claim had become dependent on the region of the country where a case was filed.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to address the issue by accepting review in Montgomery, parties in pending cases can expect clarity before the end of the Supreme Court’s term in late June or early July 2026. In the interim, brokers or other parties who face a potentially dispositive FAAAA preemption issue should consider seeking stays pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Harry M. Byrne, Robert M. Palumbos, James H. Steigerwald, Ryan F. Monahan, any of the attorneys in our Transportation, Automotive and Logistics Industry Group, any of the attorneys in our Trial Practice Group, any of the attorneys in our Appellate Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.