Article source: Anidjar & Levine Law, FL
Serious truck accident litigation often extends beyond the driver and the trucking company.
A freight broker may also have played a role by selecting the motor carrier that ultimately placed the truck on the road. For years, however, federal courts disagreed over whether injured people could pursue state-law negligent-selection claims against those brokers.
A May 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decision has now answered an important part of that question.
In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, the Court unanimously held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt a negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker when the claim falls within the statute’s motor-vehicle safety exception.
For Florida truck crash litigation, that is a significant change.
Why Freight Brokers Matter in Trucking
Freight brokers generally connect businesses that need goods transported with motor carriers capable of hauling those loads.
The broker may not own the tractor-trailer, employ the driver, or physically transport anything. That separation has made broker liability one of the more difficult areas of commercial transportation litigation.
After a serious collision, a claimant may investigate not only how the driver operated the truck but also how the carrier was selected.
For someone seeking truck accident legal support in Tampa, identifying the companies involved in arranging and performing the shipment can therefore be important before deciding which parties may have legal responsibility.
The presence of a broker does not itself create liability. The issue is whether a viable legal duty exists and whether the evidence shows that duty was breached.
The Federal Preemption Problem
The dispute in Montgomery centered on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, commonly called the FAAAA.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 14501, federal law broadly prevents states from enforcing laws related to the prices, routes, or services of motor carriers and brokers involved in transporting property.
Freight brokers argued that negligent-selection lawsuits interfered with their core service of choosing carriers and were therefore preempted.
Several federal appellate courts accepted versions of that argument.
The Eleventh Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Florida, had previously held in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. that the FAAAA preempted a negligent-selection claim against a transportation broker and that the statutory safety exception did not save it.
That precedent created a substantial obstacle to comparable claims in Florida federal courts.
What the Supreme Court Changed
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court took a different view.
In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, a truck driver alleged that freight broker C.H. Robinson negligently selected an unsafe motor carrier whose truck later collided with him.
The Court assumed that the FAAAA’s general preemption provision could cover the negligent-hiring claim. It then focused on the statute’s safety exception.
That exception preserves a state’s safety regulatory authority “with respect to motor vehicles.”
The Supreme Court concluded that a negligent-hiring claim involving selection of an allegedly unsafe motor carrier falls within that exception. The connection to motor-vehicle safety was direct enough to prevent federal preemption from eliminating the claim.
The ruling was unanimous.
The Decision Directly Affected Eleventh Circuit Law
The impact in Florida did not remain theoretical for long.
In June 2026, the Eleventh Circuit expressly recognized that its earlier Aspen precedent had been abrogated by Montgomery and vacated a decision that had relied on the former rule.
That matters because Florida sits within the Eleventh Circuit.
A federal preemption defense that previously could dispose of certain broker negligent-selection claims can no longer rely on Aspen in the same way.
The ruling adds another potential layer to the already broad range of potentially liable parties that can arise after a commercial trucking collision.
Broker Liability Is Still Not Automatic
The Supreme Court did not hold that freight brokers are liable whenever a carrier causes a crash.
That is an important limitation.
Montgomery addressed federal preemption. It did not decide whether every plaintiff can establish the elements of a negligent-hiring or negligent-selection claim under the state law governing the case.
A claimant may still need evidence concerning what the broker knew or reasonably should have known about the carrier, whether the carrier presented a relevant safety risk, and whether the alleged selection failure actually contributed to the collision.
That makes evidence about carrier selection potentially important alongside familiar truck accident evidence such as electronic logs, vehicle data, maintenance records, and driver qualification materials.
A Broader Investigation May Now Be Required
Montgomery changes an important threshold issue in truck crash litigation.
In Florida and elsewhere, lawyers investigating serious commercial vehicle crashes may have greater reason to examine the entire transportation chain rather than stopping with the truck driver and motor carrier.
That can include asking who selected the carrier, what information was available when the selection was made, and whether legally relevant safety concerns should have affected that decision.
The Supreme Court did not guarantee liability against brokers.
It did something narrower but consequential: it removed a federal preemption barrier that had prevented certain state safety-based claims from moving forward.
For truck accident litigation, that means the company arranging the load may now warrant closer scrutiny along with the company hauling it.
This article provides general information about federal transportation and personal injury law and is not legal advice for an individual case.
