On May 14, 2026, a unanimous Supreme Court held that state negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers are not preempted by federal law. The decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, reverses the rule that had previously shielded brokers from such claims in much of the country — including the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida.
This post explains what the Court decided, why the ruling has particular significance for Florida brokers, and what transportation clients should be doing differently starting now.
The Decision
Shawn Montgomery sustained severe injuries — including the amputation of his leg — when his tractor-trailer was struck by a Caribe Transport truck driven through Illinois. He sued the driver, the motor carrier, and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., the broker that had coordinated the shipment. Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson had negligently hired Caribe Transport, which had a "conditional" safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reflecting deficiencies in driver qualifications, hours-of-service compliance, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates.
The District Court and the Seventh Circuit dismissed the claim, holding that it was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), which broadly preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of a motor carrier or broker. The Supreme Court reversed.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett relied on the FAAAA's safety exception, which preserves "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles." § 14501(c)(2)(A). State common-law duties — including the duty of reasonable care in selecting a contractor — fall within that authority. Because a claim that a broker negligently selected an unsafe carrier "concerns" the trucks the carrier will use, the claim is "with respect to motor vehicles" and thus saved from preemption.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, concurred. While agreeing with the result, he wrote separately to underscore that the case was closer than the majority suggested and that the decision "should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents." Brokers who conduct reasonable due diligence and select reputable carriers, he emphasized, should still be able to defend successfully.
Why This Matters Particularly in Florida
Florida sits in the Eleventh Circuit, which had ruled the other way in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, 65 F. 4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023). Under Aspen, negligent-hiring claims against brokers operating in Florida were preempted. Under Montgomery, that defense is gone.
The practical consequence for Florida brokers is significant. Florida sits at the crossroads of Caribbean and Latin American freight, Gulf Coast trucking, and I-95 distribution to the Northeast. Negligent-hiring exposure that had been off the table in this circuit one week ago is now squarely on the table.
What Transportation Clients Should Do Now
Montgomery did not create a new standard of care. It confirmed that the existing state-law standard — reasonable care in selecting a carrier — applies to brokers without the protection of federal preemption. The compliance question is therefore one of evidence: can a broker show, after an accident, that its carrier-selection process satisfied reasonable care?
For most well-run brokerages, the answer should be yes. The work is in making sure the file proves it.
- Vet every carrier through FMCSA data. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration publishes safety ratings, hours-of-service scores, inspection results, and crash records. A broker that hires a carrier with a "conditional" or "unsatisfactory" rating without further inquiry is the broker most exposed under Montgomery. Pull the data, document the pull date, and document the review.
- Re-vet on a defined cadence. Carriers' safety profiles change. A vendor that was satisfactory at onboarding may have deteriorated. Define a re-vetting interval — annually at a minimum, more frequently for high-volume relationships — and keep evidence of each re-check.
- Document the decision, not just the result. If a carrier had a marginal safety profile but the broker chose to use it anyway based on, for example, a known operational history or specific contractual safeguards, document the reasoning at the time of the decision. After-the-fact rationalizations carry far less weight than contemporaneous notes.
- Review contracts for indemnity and safety representations. Broker-carrier contracts should require the carrier to maintain its operating authority and safety rating, comply with all FMCSA regulations, and indemnify the broker for losses arising from the carrier's negligence. These provisions do not block a plaintiff's negligent-hiring claim, but they shift the ultimate cost to the negligent party.
- Review insurance. The FAAAA does not require brokers to maintain a minimum level of liability insurance. With negligent-hiring claims now viable in every circuit, brokers should review existing coverage limits, confirm that broker-specific endorsements are in place, and discuss the new exposure with their carriers.
- Train dispatch and procurement personnel. The frontline employees who actually pick carriers need to know what to look for, what disqualifies a carrier, and what to escalate. Written policies and documented training make the difference between a defensible record and a problematic one.
Closing Note
Montgomery resolves a long-running circuit split in favor of injured plaintiffs, and Florida brokers in particular have moved overnight from a preempted-defense jurisdiction to a no-preemption rule. The practical takeaway is not to stop using brokers — they remain essential to how nearly a third of U.S. freight moves — but to harden carrier-selection processes against the kinds of claims that are now indisputably available in state court.