CarrierScrub
What did the Supreme Court decide in Montgomery v. Caribe?
That a claim that a broker negligently hired a motor carrier is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The Act preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of carriers and brokers, but its safety exception says the preemption "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles" (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)). Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett held that requiring a broker to use ordinary care in choosing a carrier "concerns" motor vehicles -- "most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods" -- so the safety exception saves the claim.
| Detail | Record |
|---|---|
| Case | Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238 |
| Argued | 4 March 2026 |
| Decided | 14 May 2026, 9-0 |
| Opinion | Justice Barrett, for a unanimous Court |
| Concurrence | Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito |
| Result | Seventh Circuit (124 F.4th 1053) reversed; case sent back for further proceedings |
| Split resolved | The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits had held these claims preempted; the Sixth and Ninth Circuits had not |
Before 14 May, brokers sued in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits could have negligent-selection claims dismissed as preempted. Now, on interstate loads, the claim goes ahead under state law, and how the broker chose the carrier becomes the question.
What was the case about?
On 7 December 2017, Shawn Montgomery had stopped his tractor-trailer on the shoulder of Interstate 70 in Illinois when another truck struck it. His leg was amputated. The other truck was hauling plastic pots for Caribe Transport II, a motor carrier, on a load arranged by C.H. Robinson, a broker. Montgomery sued the driver, the carrier and the broker.
His claim against the broker was negligent hiring: that C.H. Robinson knew, or should have known, that hiring Caribe was "reasonably likely to result in crashes that would injure others." The evidence he pointed to was public. FMCSA had given Caribe a "conditional" safety rating, finding it deficient on, among other things, driver qualification, drivers' hours of service, inspection, repair and maintenance, and its recordable crash rate.
The claim against the broker rested on a fact anyone could read on FMCSA's record before booking the load.
Can a broker now be sued for every crash?
No. The ruling decides only that the claim is not preempted. The person suing still has to prove it under the state's ordinary negligence law, which the opinion describes as "a duty of reasonable care in employing a contractor for work carrying a risk of physical harm." Whether a particular broker met that duty is decided case by case, state by state.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, wrote separately that the decision "should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents," and that brokers "should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies." He pointed to the proximate-cause requirement as a further protection, and noted that FMCSA requires a broker to use a federally registered carrier but sets no other safety standard for choosing one.
So a negligent-selection case asks what the broker knew, or could have known, when it chose the carrier, and what it did about it.
What has happened since the ruling?
A verdict of about $604 million followed in July 2026. In Peyton v. Lupus, a Dallas County, Texas, jury returned it over a fatal March 2021 crash in Jackson, Mississippi, and assigned 23% of the fault to C.H. Robinson, the broker, 32% to the carrier and 45% to the driver. C.H. Robinson has said it will appeal.
The carrier held a Satisfactory safety rating, FMCSA's highest, both when it was chosen and at the time of the crash. Husch Blackwell, a law firm that reviewed the jury charge, says the jury did not find the broker negligent in selecting the carrier. It found that the driver was the broker's "borrowed employee" on a "special mission" under its control, on evidence about how the load was run, including GPS tracking and mandatory check-ins.
That makes two different risks: how a broker chooses a carrier, which Montgomery opened to state suits, and how much control it takes over the load once it moves. A carrier check speaks to the first only.
What should a broker's carrier check record?
Neither the Court nor FMCSA sets a checklist, and what counts as reasonable care is a question of state law for your counsel. What the case does show is that the record a court will read is FMCSA's own, as it stood on the day the load was booked. A useful record keeps, for each carrier and each load:
- Operating authority, and its date. Active for-hire carrier authority -- not only a USDOT number, and not only broker authority -- on the day you checked.
- Insurance on file against the requirement. The liability filing FMCSA holds, compared with the amount the carrier's operation requires.
- The safety rating and the date it was assigned. The claim in Montgomery was a Conditional rating. Most carriers have no rating at all, which is not a finding either way; safety ratings, explained.
- Out-of-service orders in force. An order bars a carrier from operating, whatever its authority record says.
- Revocations or suspensions pending. A notice served but not yet in effect, with both dates.
- Which record each fact came from, and that record's date. FMCSA stopped updating its legacy open-data files on 14 May 2026, so the source matters; where FMCSA's data comes from now.
- Your written selection policy, and which version was in force. The reasons you approve or decline a carrier, written before the load, not reconstructed after a claim.
- A re-check before the next load. Authority, insurance and ratings change after onboarding.
Negligent hiring turns on what the broker knew or should have known when it chose the carrier, so the record has to show what FMCSA's files said that day, not what they say now.
How many carriers would those checks flag today?
More than an Active status suggests. From FMCSA's own files:
| What FMCSA's record shows | Carriers | On a CarrierScrub result |
|---|---|---|
| Conditional safety rating | 70,279 of the 4,502,467 carriers in FMCSA's census | CAUTION, with the rating's date |
| Unsatisfactory safety rating | 15,898 of the same 4,502,467 | CAUTION, with the rating's date |
| Federal out-of-service order in force while Motus lists the authority Active | 1,088 of the 114,559 carriers Motus listed as active (0.95%) | STOP |
| Suspension notice served, not yet in effect | 5,316 of the same 114,559 (4.64%) | CAUTION, with both dates |
| Liability cover on file below the requirement | 1,471 of the same 114,559 (1.28%) | STOP, or CAUTION where an earlier, lower requirement is met |
An authority check alone would pass every one of the 1,088: Motus shows them Active.
What does a CarrierScrub check record?
Every result is one dated verdict -- GO, CAUTION or STOP -- with the reason for each flag, the FMCSA record it came from and that record's date. A free account can print a numbered packet with a public verification link to attach to the load. On the Small Brokerage and Agency plans, the vetting file keeps your written carrier-selection policy, versioned, and every check your brokerage ran, by carrier or by load number, with the record each one rested on, printable or as a CSV.
It reports what FMCSA published. It does not judge a carrier beyond that record, it does not give legal advice, and a check is not a defense on its own: whether a broker's choice was reasonable depends on everything it knew. How verdicts work lists every rule.