By: John P. Lock, Esquire
In cases involving bodily injury or death arising out of truck accidents, plaintiffs often assert claims not only against the truck driver and motor carrier, but also against entities that are “upstream” from the motor carrier,
such as the freight broker.
A freight broker is an intermediary (middleman) who connects shippers (businesses with goods to move) with motor carriers (trucking companies) that have the capacity to transport them. Freight brokers do not own the
trucks, employ the drivers or take possession of the cargo.
Plaintiffs sue upstream entities, like brokers, to increase the number of pockets against whom recovery may be obtained. Additionally, freight brokers often have deeper pockets than the accident-involved motor carriers. In seeking recovery against freight brokers, plaintiffs allege that the broker was negligent in its selection/hiring of an unsafe motor carrier. Plaintiffs further allege that the truck driver was an agent or de facto employee of the broker, for whose negligence the broker is vicariously liable.
There, however, are defenses against these claims. A key defense available to freight brokers is based on a federal statute known as the Federal Aviation Authorization Administration Act (“FAAAA”) codified as 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(1). Specifically, broker defendants have a strong argument that plaintiffs’ state-law tort claims (i.e., negligent selection/hiring claims) against them are preempted by the FAAAA.
This primer provides an overview of FAAAA preemption and the current legal landscape regarding its merits.
What is FAAAA?
Enacted in 1994, FAAAA is a federal law that generally prohibits states from enacting laws related to the price, route, or service of motor carriers and brokers. The statute was enacted to create national uniformity in the trucking industry by eliminating a patchwork of inconsistent state regulations hindering interstate commerce. With the passage of FAAAA, Congress markedly expanded the federal government’s deregulation of interstate trucking initiated by the Motor Carrier Act of 1980.
FAAAA Provides Authority for Preemption (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1))
To promote uniformity in interstate trucking, the FAAAA contains a preemption provision that expressly prohibits states from enacting or enforcing laws “relating to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder.” Preemption provisions, like the one contained in the FAAAA, are based on the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and prevent states from regulating areas where Congress has intended to create uniform national standards, overriding contrary laws from state legislatures, courts, and agencies. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that state tort law (encompassing negligence claims) may qualify as state law subject to preemption absent a demonstration of a contrary intent by Congress.
The “Safety Exception” Preserves Some State Authority (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A))
While the scope of the FAAAA’s preemption provision is sweeping, it is not absolute due to the Act’s inclusion of a savings clause, known as the “safety exception.” The Act’s safety exception preserves a state’s traditional
authority to regulate motor vehicle safety by expressly providing that “[the Act’s preemption clause] shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”
Application to Tort Claims against Freight Brokers
When plaintiffs assert negligent selection/hiring claims against freight brokers in lawsuits arising out of trucking accidents, plaintiffs’ claims sound in state law. Because such claims relate to the services of brokers with respect to the transportation of property, they squarely fall within the FAAAA’s preemption provision and thus provide defendant brokers with grounds to seek dismissal of the claims.
The Central Conflict regarding FAAAA Preemption
While it is generally accepted that common-law negligent selection/hiring claims against freight brokers fall within the broad sweep of the FAAAA’s preemption provision, considerable debate exists as to whether these
same claims fall within the scope of the Act’s safety exception preserving the state’s authority to regulate motor vehicle safety.
- The Scenario: A motor carrier, with limited insurance, causes a fatal accident. Plaintiff’s estate sues the freight broker, alleging that it was negligent in hiring an unsafe motor carrier.
- Broker Argument: Plaintiff’s state-law negligence claims relate to the broker’s services and are thus preempted by the FAAAA. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.
- Plaintiff Argument: Plaintiff’s negligence claims against the broker are saved from preemption because they fall under the FAAAA’s safety exception. Accordingly, the claims are permitted.
Current Legal Landscape: A Split in Authority
Courts across the country are widely divided as to whether FAAAA preempts common-law negligent claims against freight brokers. The critical point of disagreement centers on whether the Act’s safety exception applies
to shield negligent selection/hiring claims against brokers from preemption.
Currently, the U.S. Courts of Appeals are evenly split on the issue. Both the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have held that the Act’s safety exception did not save the plaintiff’s negligence claims from preemption. Aspen
American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023); Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023). In reaching this conclusion, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts narrowly
construed the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” contained in the safety exception to require a sufficiently direct connection between the potentially exempted state law and motor vehicles. Under this narrow construction, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits agreed with the lower courts’ findings that the link between broker hiring standards and motor vehicles was too attenuated to trigger the protections of the safety exception.
Conversely, the Ninth and Sixth Circuit Courts determined that state-law tort claims fell within the protection of the FAAAA’s safety exception. In reaching this conclusion, the Ninth and Sixth Circuits interpreted the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” broadly to support exemption of state laws with an indirect link to motor vehicles, including negligent selection/hiring claims against brokers. Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020); Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847 (6th Cir. 2025). Similarly, federal district courts and state courts across the country have reached differing conclusions on the issue, resulting in a patchwork
of uncertainty for the transportation industry and plaintiffs alike.
The U.S. Supreme Court to Resolve the Conflict
After declining to hear the issue on three prior occasions, on October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court finally agreed to do so by accepting review of a Seventh Circuit decision holding that the FAAAA’s safety exception
failed to save common-law negligence claims from preemption. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053 (7th Cir. 2025). The Supreme Court heard oral argument on the issue on March 4, 2026, and is expected
to issue its decision before the end of the Court’s term in late June of this year.
Practical Pointers
- Raise Preemption in all Cases: Whether in federal or state courts, freight broker defendants should assert FAAAA preemption in all cases involving claims of negligent selection/hiring of motor carriers. The
Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on the issue will serve as the “law of the land,” under which all federal and state courts will be bound. - Assert Preemption on behalf of Non-Brokers: FAAAA preemption should be asserted on behalf of defendant shippers and freight forwarders. Courts have held that FAAAA preemption extends to claims
against non-brokers involved in the arrangement for the transportation of cargo, including shippers. - Challenge Vicarious Liability: Practitioners defending freight brokers should assert that FAAAA preempts vicarious liability claims. While case law is limited, some courts have held that FAAAA preemption extends to vicarious liability claims.
- Assert Preemption Early: FAAAA preemption can and should be raised at the pleading stage. If unsuccessful at the pleading stage, preemption should be reasserted in a motion for summary judgment.
- Consider Seeking Stay: Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the issue, practitioners representing freight brokers, freight forwarders and shippers facing negligent selection/hiring claims
should consider seeking a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
Please contact John Lock, Esquire, of Lock Gordon Law Group’s Transportation Law practice group with questions about this article or any other aspect of trucking or transportation law.