# How Do State Negligent Hiring Claims Against Brokers Work After Montgomery?

Natalie Fletcher · October 14, 2026

> Montgomery v. Caribe Transport Explained Montgomery v. Caribe Transport resolved a circuit split over whether the Federal Aviation Administration...

## Montgomery v. Caribe Transport Explained

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport resolved a circuit split over whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts state-law negligent hiring and negligent selection claims against freight brokers. The Supreme Court held that FAAAA preemption does not categorically bar these claims, because a broker's alleged failure to vet a motor carrier is not sufficiently "related to" a price, route, or service. This cleared the path for plaintiffs to pursue state tort theories that had previously been dismissed at the pleading stage in several jurisdictions.

**Also worth reading:** [How Will Freight Broker Negligent Selection Liability Evolve After Montgomery?](https://lawr.io/knowledge/how_will_freight_broker_negligent_selection_liability_evolve_after_montgomery.php) · [How Should Legal Services Brokers Audit AI Agents Against the NIST AI RMF Before Recommending Them to Clients?](https://lawr.io/knowledge/how_should_legal_services_brokers_audit_ai_agents_against_the_nist_ai_rmf_before_recommending_them_to_clients.php) · [What Are the Biggest AI Carrier Vetting Legal Risks Facing Brokers in 2026?](https://lawr.io/knowledge/what_are_the_biggest_ai_carrier_vetting_legal_risks_facing_brokers_in_2026.php)

After Montgomery, courts apply a fact-specific analysis rather than a blanket rule. A negligent hiring claim survives preemption when it targets the broker's own conduct in selecting an unsafe carrier, not the carrier's rates or routes. The Fifth Circuit's revival of negligent selection claims illustrates this shift, and brokers now face renewed exposure under state law. Defenses remain available, including that the claim is really a disguised service-price attack or that the broker owed no duty to the injured party.

## FAAAA Preemption and the Safety Exception

After the Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery v. Pilot Travel Centers, state negligent hiring and negligent selection claims against freight brokers occupy a clearer but still complicated position. The Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts state laws related to transportation "prices, routes, or services," but claims like negligent selection of a carrier do not target those economic functions. Instead, they challenge a broker's separate responsibility to choose safe, qualified carriers. Because such claims rest on the broker's own conduct rather than regulating carrier rates or routes, they generally fall outside FAAAA preemption, allowing plaintiffs to pursue state common-law remedies in most circumstances.

The practical effect is that brokers now face direct exposure to jury verdicts for inadequate vetting practices, including failures to verify operating authority, insurance, and safety records. Defense strategies increasingly focus on causation and the broker's duty scope rather than preemption alone. Brokers should review carrier-qualification protocols, document vetting decisions carefully, and align contracts with the strengthened state-law liability landscape that Montgomery leaves intact.

## Broker Duty to Screen Carriers

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery, state negligent hiring claims against freight brokers are no longer automatically preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. The Court held that a negligent selection claim is not "related to" a broker's prices, routes, or services because the duty to vet carriers arises from general tort law, not from broker-specific regulation. This clears the way for plaintiffs to sue brokers in state court for failing to exercise reasonable care in selecting unsafe motor carriers.

The Fifth Circuit has already revived such claims on remand, and industry observers expect a wave of similar litigation. Brokers now face heightened exposure for inadequate carrier screening, including failing to verify safety ratings, insurance, and operating authority. Higginbotham's creation of a dedicated transportation division signals that insurers and brokers are bracing for this new landscape. To manage risk, brokers should document thorough vetting procedures and consider contractual indemnity protections.

## State Law Claims Brokers Now Face

After Montgomery, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state-law negligent hiring and negligent selection claims against freight brokers. The Court reasoned that such claims, rooted in a broker's own duty to exercise reasonable care in choosing carriers, are not "related to" a motor carrier's prices, routes, or services, so they fall outside FAAAA's express preemption clause. This clears the way for plaintiffs to sue brokers under state tort law when a poorly vetted carrier causes harm.

The Fifth Circuit has since revived negligent selection claims on remand, confirming that brokers may be liable when they fail to investigate a carrier's safety record, insurance, or operating authority before tendering freight. Brokers now face exposure in state courts for hiring unfit carriers, and the scope of discovery will likely probe their vetting procedures, safety rating checks, and complaint histories. Defenses will turn on whether the broker breached a recognized duty of care under the applicable state's law.

## Risk Management and Insurance Implications

The Supreme Court's decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport cleared the path for state-law negligent hiring and negligent selection claims against freight brokers, rejecting the argument that federal preemption under the FAAAA categorically bars such suits. Under this framework, a broker may be liable when it fails to exercise reasonable care in selecting a motor carrier, particularly if it had notice of the carrier's unsafe practices or inadequate insurance. The Fifth Circuit's revival of negligent selection claims confirms that plaintiffs can proceed where they plausibly allege the broker knew or should have known of the carrier's deficiencies.

For brokers, this shifts risk management toward documented vetting, continuous monitoring, and contractual indemnity protections. Insurers must reassess professional liability and contingent auto exposures, since standard policies may exclude or limit these claims. Brokers should verify carrier authority, safety scores, and insurance status at booking and throughout the haul, while securing additional insured endorsements and clear indemnification language. Captive programs and dedicated transportation divisions, like Higginbotham's, reflect growing demand for tailored coverage and loss control in this evolving liability landscape.

## Broker Liability Exposure Before and After Montgomery

| Aspect | Before Montgomery | After Montgomery |
| --- | --- | --- |
| FAAAA preemption defense | Broadly invoked to bar state claims tied to carrier selection | Narrowed; claims too tenuous to price, route, or service survive |
| Negligent hiring/selection claims | Dismissed in many courts as preempted | Revived; proceed under state tort law |
| Carrier vetting practices | Minimal scrutiny; reliance on federal safety data | Enhanced due diligence, insurance verification, ongoing monitoring |
| Broker liability exposure | Limited; claims rarely reached the merits | Significant; juries can award damages for carrier misconduct |

After Montgomery, freight brokers can no longer hide behind FAAAA preemption to escape state negligent hiring and selection claims. Brokers must now implement rigorous vetting procedures, verify insurance coverage, and continuously monitor the motor carriers they select. Companies that fail to exercise reasonable care in matching loads with carriers face substantial liability exposure, including compensatory and punitive damages, when negligent selection causes accidents and injuries.

## Quick answers

### What did the Supreme Court decide in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II?

The Court held that the FAAAA's safety exception allows state negligent hiring and selection claims against freight brokers to proceed.

### Can brokers like C.H. Robinson be sued for negligent carrier selection?

Yes, plaintiffs can now pursue state-law negligent hiring claims when brokers fail to properly vet unsafe carriers.

### Does the FAAAA preempt negligent hiring claims against brokers?

No, the Supreme Court clarified that claims based on carrier safety fall within the FAAAA's safety exception to preemption.

### How should brokers respond to the Montgomery decision?

Brokers should strengthen carrier vetting procedures, monitor safety ratings, and review insurance coverage for liability exposure.

Canonical: https://lawr.io/knowledge/how_do_state_negligent_hiring_claims_against_brokers_work_after_montgomery.php
Markdown: https://lawr.io/knowledge/how_do_state_negligent_hiring_claims_against_brokers_work_after_montgomery.php/index.md