The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (the “FAAAA”) does not preempt all state law negligence claims against freight brokers arising from catastrophic accidents, allowing negligent hiring claims to proceed under the FAAAA’s “safety exception.”
In Montgomery v. Caribe,1 plaintiff Shawn Montgomery filed suit against freight broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., among others, in connection with injuries sustained after a truck transporting a consignment of plastic pots veered off the highway and struck his parked tractor-trailer. Despite poor ratings by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, C.H. Robinson hired motor carrier Caribe Transport II, LLC, to complete the transportation, which Montgomery alleged gave rise to vicarious liability for C.H. Robinson for negligent hiring of Caribe Transport and its driver. C.H. Robinson argued Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim was preempted by the FAAAA.
While the FAAAA generally preempts state laws related to the prices, routes, and services of the trucking industry, the safety exception provides that such preemption “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”2 The safety exception was carefully crafted by Congress to preserve “preexisting and traditional state police power over [motor vehicle] safety.”3 Whether negligent hiring claims like this one fall within the safety exception has been subject to a circuit split: the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal have held negligent hiring claims do not fall within the exception, while the Sixth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that they do.4
With Montgomery, the Supreme Court has now resolved the split by following the Sixth and Ninth Circuit Courts in holding that state law negligent hiring claims are not preempted by the FAAAA and reversing and remanding the Seventh Circuit’s decision that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted. In reaching this decision, the majority opinion5 analyzed the plain language of the safety exception, applying what they deemed to be a straightforward interpretation of the language to Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim and finding that the allegation that C.H. Robinson failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring Caribe Transport directly concerned motor vehicle safety.6
This decision marks a shift in the legal landscape for freight brokers who for years relied on the preemptive effect of the FAAAA to escape liability from all state law negligence claims. While much of the FAAAA’s preemption provision remains intact, freight brokers likely will see an uptick in litigation as plaintiffs attempt to push the boundaries of this interpretation of the safety exception. As noted in the concurrence, “brokers rightly caution against naiveté”7 and, at minimum, will need to be more rigorous in their vetting process for selecting reputable motor carriers to minimize liability moving forward. This will likely create a ripple effect in the industry, leading to increased brokerage rates and insurance premiums reflecting the greater litigation exposure and higher costs associated with a heightened vetting process for motor carriers.
Disclaimer: This publication is made available for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have questions about any matters in this publication, please contact the authors directly. General inquiries may be directed to info@nullcondonlaw.com.
1 Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al., 608 U.S. ____ (2026).
2 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).
3 Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U.S. 424, 439 (2022) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A)).
4 Compare Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F. 4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023), abrogated by Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 WL 1336188 (U.S. May 14, 2026) and Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023) with Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847 (6th Cir. 2025) and Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020).
5 Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion and Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurrence, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. While the concurring justices ultimately join the majority’s opinion, the concurrence highlights additional industry concerns regarding higher insurance costs and unpredictable litigation associated with this interpretation of the safety exception.
6 Montgomery, 2026 WL 1336188, at *5.
7 Montgomery, 2026 WL 1336188, at *8 (Kavanaugh, J., concurrence).