Negligent Carrier Selection After Montgomery v. Caribe
By LoadBetter Team, Content Team
Industry Insights
5 min read
The Supreme Court rejected FAAAA preemption for a broker negligent-hiring claim. Here is what changed and what freight teams should review.
On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC.
The Court unanimously held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, commonly known as the FAAAA, did not preempt the negligent-hiring claim presented in the case because the claim fell within the law's exception preserving state safety authority "with respect to motor vehicles."
For freight brokers and transportation teams, the decision is important — but its practical lesson is more nuanced than "brokers are now liable for carrier accidents."
The Supreme Court did not decide whether the broker in Montgomery was negligent. It did not create a national carrier-vetting checklist. And it did not specify which data points transportation companies must review before selecting a carrier.
What the decision does provide is a useful reason to look more closely at how carrier qualification and individual load assignments fit together.
For freight brokers, 3PLs and transportation teams, that makes Montgomery not only a legal development, but also an opportunity to examine how carrier-selection decisions are made, communicated and recorded.
Montgomery v. Caribe at a glance
The decision can be summarized in four points:
A state-law negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker may fall within the FAAAA's motor vehicle safety exception.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether C.H. Robinson was negligent.
The Court did not establish a federal carrier-selection standard or required vetting checklist.
The case directly addressed a claim involving a transportation broker, rather than establishing a new rule for shippers generally.
The distinction between allowing a claim to proceed and proving that claim is important.
Montgomery resolved the federal preemption question before the Court. Questions about negligence, causation and the applicable standard of care remain matters for further proceedings and applicable state law.
What happened in Montgomery v. Caribe
The case arose from a serious truck collision in Illinois.
According to the Supreme Court's opinion, a truck operated for Caribe Transport II struck Shawn Montgomery's tractor-trailer while it was stopped on the side of the road. Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries, including the amputation of his leg.
C.H. Robinson had acted as the transportation broker coordinating the shipment.
Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson negligently selected Caribe Transport and its driver. His complaint asserted that Caribe Transport had a conditional safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and that C.H. Robinson knew, or should have known, that selecting the carrier created an unreasonable safety risk.
Those were allegations made in the case. The Supreme Court did not determine whether they were true or whether they were sufficient to establish negligence.
The District Court held that the FAAAA preempted Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim and that the statute's safety exception did not apply. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Other federal appellate courts had reached different conclusions about whether the FAAAA safety exception allows negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers.
The Supreme Court took the case to resolve that disagreement.
What the Supreme Court decided
The FAAAA generally prevents states from enforcing certain laws related to a motor carrier's or broker's prices, routes or services in connection with the transportation of property.
The statute also preserves certain areas of state authority. One of those exceptions provides that the federal preemption rule does not restrict a state's safety regulatory authority "with respect to motor vehicles."
The Supreme Court concluded that a negligent-hiring claim like Montgomery's falls within that safety exception.
The Court reasoned that requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care when selecting a motor carrier concerns the motor vehicles that will ultimately transport the freight. As a result, the negligent-hiring claim presented in the case was not barred by FAAAA preemption.
There is an important technical limitation to the ruling.
The Court assumed, without deciding, that the FAAAA would otherwise preempt Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim. Its holding focused on the application of the motor vehicle safety exception.
The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.
It did not decide the underlying negligence claim.
What the decision did not decide
Understanding what Montgomery did not establish is just as important as understanding what it did.
It did not find the broker negligent
The Supreme Court decided whether federal law prevented Montgomery's state-law claim from proceeding.
It did not decide whether C.H. Robinson breached a duty of care, whether its carrier-selection process was unreasonable or whether its conduct legally caused Montgomery's injuries.
Those are separate questions.
It did not create a federal carrier-selection checklist
The opinion does not prescribe:
A required set of FMCSA records that brokers must review
A specific safety-rating threshold for carrier approval
A mandatory frequency for carrier rechecks
A required insurance-verification process
A universal exception policy
A nationwide record-retention period
The Court's decision was about federal preemption, not about designing an operating procedure for freight companies.
The appropriate carrier-selection process may vary depending on applicable state law, the company's role, the information available, the shipment and the company's own policies.
It did not create automatic broker liability
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized in a concurring opinion that the Court's decision should not be understood to mean that brokers will routinely face liability after truck accidents.
The concurrence pointed to reasonable conduct and proximate cause as important parts of the analysis in state tort cases. It also recognized the practical concerns raised by the brokerage industry, including litigation and insurance costs.
That does not create a formal safe harbor for brokers. It does reinforce the distinction between permitting a claim to proceed and proving liability.
It did not eliminate FAAAA preemption
The decision is also narrower than saying that FAAAA preemption no longer applies to freight brokers.
The Court explained that the safety exception preserves a subset of claims connected to motor vehicle safety. State laws related to prices, routes or services that do not have that safety connection may still be preempted.
What freight teams can learn from the decision
Montgomery does not tell transportation teams exactly how to select carriers.
It does, however, bring renewed attention to an important operational distinction: having an approved carrier network and choosing a carrier for an individual load are related, but they are not necessarily the same decision.
That distinction is useful well beyond the legal issues in the case.
Most transportation organizations already have some form of carrier onboarding or approval process. They may also have operating rules for awarding individual loads.
Understanding how those two processes connect can help teams build a clearer and more consistent freight workflow.
Carrier qualification and carrier selection are two different moments
Carrier qualification usually happens before a specific shipment is available.
An onboarding or qualification file may contain:
A W-9
A certificate of insurance
A broker-carrier or shipper-carrier agreement
Operating-authority information
Safety information reviewed during onboarding
Internal approval records
Once the carrier enters an approved network, another decision occurs every time the company assigns that carrier a load.
The circumstances may be different.
Time has passed. The shipment has its own equipment, lane, timing and operating requirements. Information about the carrier may have changed. Multiple approved carriers may be available.
Depending on the organization's policies and professional guidance, the load-level decision may consider questions such as:
Is the carrier currently approved?
Does the carrier meet the requirements of this particular shipment?
Has relevant carrier information changed since the initial approval?
Are any additional approvals required?
Is an exception being used?
Who is making the assignment?
The Supreme Court did not require transportation companies to collect each of these records.
The broader operational lesson is that carrier approval establishes a relationship, while carrier selection applies that relationship to a specific shipment.
Having clarity around both stages can make the overall process easier to manage.
Why contemporaneous records are useful
Experience and long-term carrier relationships matter in transportation.
A team may know a carrier well after working together for hundreds of loads.
At the same time, having a simple record of what happened during an individual assignment can help provide context later.
That record might show:
Which carrier was selected
When the selection occurred
Which internal process applied
Whether an exception was used
Who approved the assignment
What offers or responses were available at the time
The objective is not to create paperwork for the sake of paperwork.
It is to make the operational history of a load easier to understand.
Many freight organizations already maintain detailed carrier files. The individual load-selection process, however, may happen across several systems and conversations.
The carrier may be approved in one system, contacted through email, negotiate a rate by phone and receive confirmation somewhere else.
A more connected workflow can make that history easier for the transportation team itself to follow.
Why consistency matters
A written carrier policy is most useful when employees understand it and can apply it consistently.
That does not mean every load must follow an identical path.
Freight is full of exceptions.
A difficult lane may require a different approach than a recurring contract lane. A specialized shipment may need different equipment or experience. An urgent recovery load may involve decisions that would not occur during routine planning.
The goal is not to eliminate judgment.
It is to make it clear where judgment fits into the process.
A structured carrier-selection process may include:
Clear qualification criteria appropriate to the operation
Defined responsibility for carrier approvals
Employee training
A process for handling exceptions
Useful load-level records
Periodic review of the process
For example, if an operation allows exceptions to its normal carrier criteria, defining who may authorize those exceptions and where the reason is recorded can create flexibility without losing visibility into the decision.
Transportation teams can then review their criteria periodically with counsel, insurance professionals and internal compliance teams to make sure the process continues to fit the business.
A practical carrier-selection framework
There is no single framework established by the Supreme Court.
The following questions are simply a starting point that freight teams can use when looking at their own process.
Stage | Questions to consider |
|---|---|
Qualification policy | Is there a clear process describing how carriers enter the approved network? |
Initial approval | Can the team identify when a carrier was approved and which criteria were applied? |
Ongoing review | Is there a process for identifying material changes in information the company considers important? |
Load assignment | Can the team identify which carrier received the load and when the decision was made? |
Exceptions | If normal criteria are not used, is there a defined way to handle and document the exception? |
Ownership | Is responsibility for approvals and load assignments clearly understood? |
Records | Can the relevant information be found without reconstructing the entire process from multiple systems? |
Review | Are policies periodically reviewed with the appropriate internal teams and professional advisers? |
This is not a legal standard or compliance checklist.
Each organization should build a process that reflects its operation, contracts, risk profile and professional guidance.
For a broader operational framework, see our guide to building and managing a vetted carrier network.
How a more connected workflow helps
Carrier sourcing and load assignment often involve several communication channels.
A typical load might touch:
A TMS
Email
Telephone calls
Text messages
Spreadsheets
Messaging applications
There is nothing inherently wrong with using those tools.
The difficulty appears when a team needs a clear picture of what happened with a particular load.
Questions that sound simple can require searching across multiple places:
Which carriers received the load?
Who responded?
What rates were submitted?
Was there a counteroffer?
Which carrier was ultimately selected?
When was the award made?
Centralizing more of that activity can make the commercial workflow easier to understand.
It is important to distinguish that operational visibility from carrier qualification itself.
A record showing that Carrier A received the load, offered $2,200 and was awarded the shipment does not establish whether Carrier A met the organization's qualification criteria.
It simply provides a clearer record of the selection and award process.
Both parts matter, but they solve different problems.
Better records can also improve everyday operations
Documentation is sometimes discussed only in the context of compliance or litigation.
Its everyday operational value may be more immediate.
When load information and carrier responses are easier to follow:
Team members can understand what has already happened
Shift changes and handoffs become easier
Managers have more context when reviewing decisions
Duplicate communication can be reduced
Carrier conversations are easier to compare
Teams can identify where their processes are creating unnecessary work
That makes structured workflow valuable even when no dispute ever occurs.
The objective is not simply to create more records.
It is to make the records created during normal freight execution more useful.
Comparing carriers is more than comparing rates
Once several approved carriers respond to the same load, the selection itself becomes a commercial decision.
Rate is obviously important.
But depending on the shipment and the company's process, transportation teams may also consider factors such as:
Equipment fit
Availability
Lane experience
Service history
Existing relationship
Response time
Shipment requirements
Internal carrier preferences
There is no universal formula for weighting those factors.
What matters operationally is that the team understands the criteria it uses and can apply them in a way that fits the business.
Our guide to comparing carrier offers beyond the lowest rate explores that part of the process in more detail.
Where technology fits
Technology cannot decide what a company's carrier-qualification policy should be.
It can, however, help make the workflow around those decisions easier to manage.
A useful freight workflow can provide visibility into:
Which carriers were invited to a load
Which carriers responded
The offers submitted
Counteroffers
Acceptance through a defined booking option
Which carrier received the award
When the award occurred
The progress of the load after booking
That information can support operations without replacing the company's own approval criteria or professional judgment.
The distinction matters.
Technology can structure the workflow. The transportation team still defines how carriers are qualified and selected.
How LoadBetter fits into the workflow
LoadBetter is a private freight marketplace for shippers, freight brokers and 3PLs.
Customers can invite or upload carriers into their private network, publish loads to that network and manage carrier responses against each load.
Carriers can submit bids, make counteroffers or respond through Book Now when that option is available.
Transportation teams can then compare responses and award the load within the same workflow.
LoadBetter helps centralize:
Private load publishing
Carrier invitations
Bids
Counteroffers
Book Now responses
Offer comparison
Load awards
Load tracking within the web application
The customer's TMS remains the system of record for broader operational and financial information. LoadBetter supports the private distribution, response and booking workflow around that system.
LoadBetter does not determine which carriers a customer should approve or establish the customer's carrier-selection criteria.
Those decisions remain part of the customer's own transportation process and should reflect its policies, contracts and professional guidance.
In that sense, LoadBetter's role is straightforward: make the workflow between publishing a load, receiving carrier responses and awarding the shipment easier to manage in one place.
For more on that model, read what a private freight marketplace is.
Questions freight teams can use to review their process
Montgomery does not require transportation companies to adopt a particular checklist.
But it creates a useful moment for brokers, 3PLs and transportation teams to understand how their existing process works from beginning to end.
Questions worth considering include:
How does a carrier become part of the approved network?
Who is responsible for carrier approval?
What information does the organization consider when approving a carrier?
Is there a process for reviewing important changes after onboarding?
What happens between carrier approval and an individual load assignment?
Who may award a load?
How are exceptions to the normal process handled?
Where are carrier responses and load awards recorded?
Can a team member easily reconstruct the commercial history of a load?
Do the company's contracts reflect the way responsibilities are handled operationally?
Are carrier qualification and selection policies reviewed periodically?
Have counsel, insurance professionals and relevant internal teams reviewed the process following Montgomery?
The answers will look different from one organization to another.
The goal is not to copy someone else's process.
It is to understand your own.
Frequently asked questions
Does Montgomery v. Caribe make brokers automatically liable for carrier accidents?
No.
The Supreme Court decided that the negligent-hiring claim presented in the case was not barred by FAAAA preemption because it fell within the motor vehicle safety exception.
The Court did not decide that C.H. Robinson was negligent and did not create automatic liability following truck accidents.
Did the Supreme Court eliminate FAAAA preemption for freight brokers?
No.
The Court held that the safety exception preserved the type of negligent-hiring claim presented in Montgomery.
The opinion also explained that laws related to motor carrier or broker prices, routes or services that have no relationship to motor vehicle safety may remain preempted.
Did the Court define reasonable carrier selection?
No.
The Court did not establish a nationwide vetting checklist, review interval, safety-rating threshold or carrier-selection procedure.
Does a conditional safety rating automatically disqualify a carrier?
The Supreme Court did not establish that rule.
Caribe Transport's alleged conditional rating was part of Montgomery's claim, but the Court did not decide whether that rating required the carrier to be rejected or whether the broker acted negligently.
Carrier-approval criteria should reflect the organization's operation and appropriate legal, insurance and compliance guidance.
Does the ruling apply directly to shippers?
The case before the Supreme Court involved a negligent-hiring claim against a transportation broker.
The Court did not establish a new shipper-specific carrier-selection duty.
Shipper responsibilities can depend on the company's conduct, contractual role and applicable law, so transportation teams should evaluate those questions with qualified counsel rather than assuming the broker ruling automatically applies in the same way.
What carrier-selection records should a business keep?
There is no record-retention checklist established by Montgomery.
Depending on the organization, useful records may include carrier approval information, relevant status information, authorized exceptions and the load-level selection and award history.
The appropriate process and retention period should be developed with counsel, insurers and relevant compliance teams.
Does freight software solve negligent carrier-selection risk?
No.
Software can organize information and create a clearer operational workflow. It cannot determine whether a carrier should be approved, establish a legal standard of care or guarantee compliance.
Its value is in helping teams manage the process they have chosen more clearly.
The takeaway
The most useful lesson from Montgomery v. Caribe is not that freight brokers need to become lawyers or build increasingly complicated carrier-selection systems.
It is that carrier selection is an important operational process worth understanding clearly.
Carrier qualification establishes who is part of the network.
Load-level selection determines who receives a particular shipment.
Policies provide structure.
People apply judgment.
And workflow records help connect those pieces.
The Supreme Court did not prescribe what that process must look like. But the decision gives transportation teams a useful reason to review how their own process works — and whether the tools, policies and information around it make carrier decisions easier to understand and manage.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Transportation liability and the duties applicable to brokers, shippers and 3PLs depend on applicable law and the facts of each matter. Organizations should consult qualified transportation counsel and insurance professionals when reviewing carrier qualification, selection, contracting or record-retention practices.
Case reference
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), decided May 14, 2026.
49 U.S.C. § 14501(c).
Bring your private carrier workflow into one place
LoadBetter lets shippers, brokers and 3PLs publish loads privately to their invited carrier networks, collect bids and counteroffers, compare responses and record awards against each load.
Start with a 30-day free trial. No credit card required.