On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053 (7th Cir. 2025). The Court will address a critical issue to the freight transportation industry, namely whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 1450(c)(1)-(2), preempts state-law negligence claims against freight brokers arising out the hiring and selection of motor carriers.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
In Montgomery, a freight broker, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (“CHR”), was retained by a shipper to arrange for the interstate transportation of goods. CHR hired a federally licensed motor carrier, Caribe Transport II, LLC (“Caribe”), to transport the goods. While hauling the shipment through Illinois, the Caribe tractor-trailer collided with a truck operated by Shawn Montgomery (“Montgomery”), causing personal injuries to Montgomery.
Montgomery filed suit against CHR, Caribe and Caribe’s driver in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, claiming, among other things, that CHR was negligent in hiring Caribe. Pursuant to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court dismissed Montgomery’s negligence claims against CHR holding that such claims were preempted by FAAAA § 14501(c)(1), which expressly bars state-law claims “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier…, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” The District Court further held that the Act’s “safety exception,” providing that preemption “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles,” was inapplicable.
Montgomery appealed the dismissal of his negligence claims against CHR to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. Montgomery, in turn, sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court. CHR further requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review the decision in order to provide clarity to the freight brokerage industry.
Case Significance & Practice Pointer
Montgomery marks the fourth time that the high Court has been asked to decide whether FAAAA preempts state-law negligence claims against freight brokers. In all previous cases, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari. The Supreme Court’s decision to address the issue now is significant as both federal and state courts across the county have reached conflicting decisions on whether the Act’s safety exception saves negligent selection claims from preemption.
Currently, the United States Courts of Appeal that have considered the issue are evenly split. Both the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have held that held that the Act’s safety exception set forth in § 14501(c)(2)(A) did not save the negligence claim from preemption. Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F. 4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023); Ying Ye, as Representative of the Estate of Shawn Lin 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 protections of the FAAA’s § 14501(c)(2)(A) 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 hiring claims against brokers. Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F. 3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020); Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., No. 24-3599, 2025 WL 1878770 (6th Cir. July 8, 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 Supreme Court’s anticipated interpretation of five critical words contained within the Act’s “safety exception” provision will finally bring clarity to the issue.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the issue by accepting review in Montgomery, practitioners representing freight brokers, freight forwarders and shippers facing negligent hiring and selection claims should consider seeking stays pending the high Court’s decision, which is expected before the end of the Court’s term in late June or early July of 2026.
Please contact John Lock, Esquire, of Lock Gordon Law Group’s Transportation Law practice group with questions about this Alert or any other aspect of trucking or transportation law.