What Plaintiffs' Lawyers Actually Look for in Your Carrier File

The call came on a Friday afternoon. A claims manager at a mid-size brokerage forwarded me the discovery request after their defense attorneys said, "you need to understand what's coming." The plaintiff's counsel was asking for every document in their possession relating to the vetting or selection of the carrier for that specific load — and they wanted anything going back to the first time the broker ever used that carrier. Three years of files, or the absence of them.

That was before Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II. Post-Montgomery, the volume of this kind of discovery is going to climb. State juries, no federal preemption shield, a plaintiff's bar that has been waiting for this ruling for years. The carrier file you build before an accident is the only defense you have after it.

Here's what plaintiffs' counsel actually looks for. I've talked to enough defense attorneys and read enough deposition excerpts that I can walk you through it. This isn't legal advice — I'm a freight broker who built a tool to avoid getting sued, not a lawyer.

The First Thing They Ask For

Under 49 CFR § 371.3, brokers are required to keep records of each brokered shipment: shipper, carrier, origin, destination, the rate charged. The retention period is three years from the date of the transaction. Plaintiffs' attorneys know this regulation cold. The first discovery request is almost always a document production demand covering every record you have on the carrier — for the specific load, and for your general carrier selection policy.

What they want to see: the carrier file for that load, your written vetting criteria, and any carrier agreement or broker-carrier packet on file. What they're hoping to find: none of the above.

When a carrier's $750,000 BIPD minimum under 49 CFR Part 387 doesn't cover a wrongful death claim with $2 million in damages, someone starts looking for the next pocket. Since Montgomery, that pocket is yours if the selection was negligent. And the question of whether the selection was negligent gets answered, in part, by what's in your file.

The Timestamp Trap

The single most damaging thing I see in carrier files isn't what was found wrong. It's the absence of a timestamp proving when the data was pulled.

You checked a SAFER snapshot. Fine. But when? If the BASIC percentile screenshot in your file doesn't have a date attached to it — or if the date isn't obviously tied to the load tender event — a plaintiffs' attorney can argue you pulled it after the accident to make the file look cleaner. I'm not saying you did. I'm saying that without a timestamp anchored to the tender date, you can't prove you didn't.

Think about what the deposition looks like. Plaintiff's counsel asks: "When did you access the FMCSA database for this carrier?" Your answer: "We pull it as part of our standard vetting process." Follow-up: "Can you show me a dated record of that pull prior to the load tender?" If the answer is no, you're trying to explain an absence under oath.

Every SAFER pull, every BASIC screenshot, every insurance verification needs a timestamp. Not an approximate week. The day, tied to the load record.

What the SAFER Snapshot Actually Tells Them

Plaintiffs' attorneys know how to read a SAFER company snapshot. They don't need to understand every BASIC nuance to find the fields that matter to a jury. They look at three things.

First, the safety rating field. An "Unsatisfactory" rating is obvious ammunition. But a "Conditional" rating with a stale compliance review date — often 18 to 24 months old — is almost as useful. Their argument: the carrier was due for re-evaluation, you didn't ask, and you put your shipper's freight on their truck. One carrier I reviewed, MC-1247893 / DOT-3567102, was showing a Satisfactory rating that had been issued before they added six trucks and three new drivers to a fleet that wasn't being maintained. The rating was real when issued; it was meaningless by the time the load moved.

Second, out-of-service percentages. If the vehicle OOS rate is sitting in the 85th percentile or above at the time you tendered the load, you need a documented reason for still using that carrier. Not a mental note. A written exception explaining what you reviewed, what threshold your policy set, and why you proceeded. "We checked and it looked okay" is not a documented reason.

Third, authority age. A carrier under 18 months of operating authority doesn't have a full inspection history yet. That's not an automatic disqualifier, but it's a documented risk factor, and if your vetting records don't address it for a newer carrier, plaintiff's counsel will ask why not in discovery.

The Insurance Question Goes Deeper Than the COI

Most brokers collect an ACORD 25 certificate and call it done. That's not enough. The FMCSA Licensing and Insurance database — the L&I database — shows the actual insurance filings: carrier name, policy effective dates, and any pending cancellation or lapse notices. A carrier can hand you a clean COI showing $1,000,000 BIPD while there's a cancellation notice on their BMC-91 filing that goes effective in 72 hours.

Plaintiffs' attorneys check the L&I database. They check it for the specific date of the accident. They want to know whether the carrier's financial responsibility filing was in force at the time of the loss. A gap — even a short one you didn't catch — becomes part of the negligent selection narrative. "The broker didn't verify active insurance through the FMCSA system; they relied solely on a certificate of insurance provided by the carrier." That sentence sounds bad in front of a jury because it is bad.

The COI is a snapshot. The L&I database is the living record. You need both, and you need evidence you checked both, keyed to the load date.

The T-Call They Never Find

This is the gap that surprises people. The pre-tender phone call with the dispatcher is often nowhere in the file.

Brokers make the T-call. Most just don't log it. No name of who they spoke to, no timestamp, no note about what was confirmed — equipment type, driver availability, any hazmat endorsement if relevant, BASIC flag raised or cleared. The call happened. The record didn't.

Under deposition: "Did you speak to anyone at this carrier before tendering the load?" Yes. "Who?" I don't remember. "What did you ask them?" The standard questions. "What are those standard questions?" At this point you're in trouble, because you're describing a process that doesn't appear to exist anywhere in writing.

A logged T-call with a name, a timestamp, and three lines of notes is the difference between a credible defense and "they say they have a vetting process but there's no evidence of it." After Montgomery, the plaintiff's bar gets to take negligent-selection claims to state court juries. Those juries are going to apply a reasonable-person standard. A logged call isn't bulletproof, but it's evidence you took the step.

The Written Policy Trap

Here's the counterintuitive one: having a written carrier selection policy and not following it is worse than not having one at all.

If your policy document says you pull BASIC scores on every tender and maintain a current file, and the file for the accident load has no BASIC screenshot, you've handed them proof of deviation from your own standard. Their argument isn't just that you failed some external requirement — it's that you failed your own. That's a different kind of damaging.

This doesn't mean skip the written policy. You should have one. It means your policy has to describe what you actually do, not what you aspire to do, and you have to follow it consistently. An aspirational policy you honor half the time is a liability document masquerading as a compliance document.

The Question That Ends Careers

There's a deposition question that shows up in a lot of these cases: "If you had known at the time of tender that this carrier's vehicle out-of-service rate was in the 88th percentile nationally, would you have still tendered the load to them?"

If you didn't check, you didn't know — and that's negligence. If you checked and didn't document, you can't prove it. If you checked, it was in the 88th percentile, and you tendered anyway with no written exception, you made a knowing choice to use a carrier with a documented safety signal. Any of those paths looks bad to twelve people in a jury box.

The only solid answer is: "We checked on this date, we documented the result, our written policy addresses OOS rate thresholds, the carrier was within our approved parameters at the time of tender, and here is the record." You can only give that answer if the record exists.

How I Document This

For every carrier approval tied to a specific load, the file needs:

• SAFER snapshot, timestamped to the day of the tender event
• BASIC percentile pull with a date — not just a checkmark that says "BASIC reviewed"
• L&I database confirmation: active financial responsibility filing, no pending lapse or cancellation
• ACORD 25 COI on file with expiration date verified against the load date
• T-call log: dispatcher name, time of call, what was confirmed, any flags noted or cleared
• A note on authority age and how many inspections are in the record — two lines is enough
• If any BASIC percentile exceeds your policy threshold: a written exception with your reasoning, or a note that the load was declined

That's five minutes for a carrier you've already vetted and approved. More for a new carrier, but the work is in the system once you've built the record.

The goal isn't to produce an impressive file for its own sake. It's to have a credible, dated, specific answer to every question a plaintiffs' attorney is going to ask about what you did before you put that truck on the road. Because they will ask. Montgomery made sure of that.

— Mason Lavallet

Founder, DOTScreener.com