Broker Liability After Montgomery: What "Ordinary Care" Now Requires

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (No. 24-1238) — unanimously, 9-0 — that a state-law claim accusing a freight broker of negligently hiring a carrier is not preempted by federal law. In plain terms: if a broker selects a carrier that then causes a crash, the broker can be sued under ordinary state negligence law for that selection. The question a court will ask is whether the broker exercised "ordinary care" in choosing the carrier.

Crucially, the Court did not hand brokers a checklist. It applied the ordinary-negligence standard — was the broker's conduct reasonable under the circumstances? — and left the specifics to be worked out case by case. That's why the practical takeaway isn't "do these five things"; it's "be able to show, with a contemporaneous record, that you vetted the carrier reasonably."

The dispute was about federal preemption. The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), bars states from enforcing laws "related to a price, route, or service" of a broker. Brokers had long argued this preempted negligent-selection suits. But the statute also has a safety exception, § 14501(c)(2)(A), preserving "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett held the negligent-hiring claim falls within that safety exception. The opinion's key line: "Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore 'concerns' motor vehicles — most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA's safety exception, which saves it from preemption." The Court also noted that "common-law duties and standards of care form part of a State's authority to regulate safety" — so the duty comes from ordinary state tort law, not a new federal rule.

The syllabus states the holding directly: "A claim that one company negligently hired another to transport goods is not preempted by the FAAAA because States retain authority to regulate safety 'with respect to motor vehicles' under the Act."

This is the part brokers most often get wrong in a panic. Montgomery did not make brokers strictly liable for every accident. Justice Kavanaugh, concurring (joined by Justice Alito), framed the practical reality: the standard is ordinary negligence, and a broker who acts reasonably and selects a reputable carrier should be able to defend these suits. (Kavanaugh did note the case was "closer than the Court's opinion perhaps might suggest" — but filed no dissent, so the 9-0 holding stands.)

In other words: the exposure is real, but it is fault-based. The plaintiff still has to prove the broker acted unreasonably in selecting the carrier and that the failure contributed to the loss. Reasonable, documented vetting is a defense — not a guarantee, but the difference between a case you can fight and a settlement you can't avoid.

Montgomery nationalized a reading that lower courts had been moving toward. In Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2800 (2021), the Ninth Circuit held that a negligent-selection claim, while "related to" broker services, was saved by the safety exception when it arose from a crash — the same ordinary-negligence framing the Supreme Court later adopted.

The momentum continued: in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., No. 24-3599 (6th Cir. July 8, 2025), the Sixth Circuit reversed a dismissal and held that "where a negligent hiring claim against a broker substantively concerns motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety, that claim is within 'the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.'" Montgomery resolved the question for the whole country.

Because the Court set no bright-line checklist, "defensible" means reasonable and, above all, documented. The strongest theme across the post-Montgomery legal analysis is timing: you want to demonstrate reasonable care contemporaneously with the hiring, not reconstruct it years later from memory in a deposition. The carrier information you reviewed, the criteria you applied, and who made the decision are exactly what turn into exhibits.

The kinds of records that become evidence in a negligent-selection case include FMCSA safety and authority data, SAFER reports, inspection and out-of-service histories, safety ratings, and your carrier onboarding and approval documentation. A dated, tamper-evident record of what you saw and why you proceeded is far stronger than a general "we always check carefully."