Broker due diligence after Montgomery v. Caribe.

On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (No. 24-1238), and it was not close: 9-0, with the opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and a concurrence from Justice Kavanaugh joined by Justice Alito.

The facts go back to 2017. Shawn Montgomery's vehicle was struck on Interstate 70 in Illinois by a truck hauling a load for Caribe Transport. Montgomery lost a leg. The load had been arranged by C.H. Robinson, one of the largest freight brokers in the country, and Montgomery sued the broker too, alleging it negligently selected a carrier whose conditional FMCSA safety rating and documented safety deficiencies were sitting in public records when the load was tendered.

For years, claims like this died at the courthouse door. Brokers argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts any state law "related to a price, route, or service" of a broker, and several federal courts agreed. The district court and the Seventh Circuit both threw Montgomery's claim out on exactly that basis, while other circuits had gone the other way, a split the Supreme Court took the case to resolve.

The Court resolved it against the brokers. The FAAAA contains a safety exception: preemption "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles" (49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A)). The Court held that state-law negligence claims over a broker's carrier selection fall within that exception. The Seventh Circuit was reversed, and the case was sent back so Montgomery's claim can proceed.

Two things the ruling did not do. It did not make brokers insurers of every load: a plaintiff still has to prove ordinary negligence, meaning the broker failed to act reasonably and that failure contributed to the harm. And the Court did not define what reasonable care in carrier selection looks like. That second gap is the whole game now, because plaintiff's lawyers and juries will be filling it in, one discovery request at a time.

Negligence has not changed: duty, breach, causation, damages. What changed is that the question "did this broker use reasonable care when it picked this carrier?" can now be put to a state-court jury instead of being dismissed on preemption. After a crash, the first thing a plaintiff's attorney will subpoena is your vetting file for that carrier. The questions are predictable: What did you check before you tendered? When did you check it? What did the data show? Where is your written carrier selection policy?

That makes post-Montgomery due diligence rest on two pillars. The first is actually checking the public record: FMCSA operating authority, safety rating, insurance filings and cancellations, inspection and out-of-service history. All of it is public, which cuts both ways: it is cheap for you to check, and easy for opposing counsel to prove you could have.

The second pillar is documentation. A check you cannot prove is, for litigation purposes, a check that never happened. The brokers in the strongest position are the ones who can produce a dated record showing what the FMCSA data said on the day they booked, for every load. The weakest position is "we usually look at SAFER" with nothing in writing.

The market read the ruling quickly. Within two weeks of the decision, FreightWaves reported that C.H. Robinson itself had begun removing carriers from its network based on safety scores. When the defendant in the case starts tightening its own carrier pool, that is a signal about where the standard of care is heading for everyone else.

One more nuance: Montgomery does not abolish FAAAA preemption. Claims aimed at a broker's prices, routes or services as economic regulation remain preempted. The exception the Court applied is about safety with respect to motor vehicles, and negligent carrier selection after a crash sits squarely inside it.