DOTScreenerDOTScreener
Get Started
Back to DOTScreener
SCOTUS May 14, 2026

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport: The Ruling Explained

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Barrett, that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 does not preempt state-law claims that a freight broker negligently selected an unsafe motor carrier. C.H. Robinson — the broker that coordinated the Caribe Transport shipment — lost its preemption defense. The case now returns to federal district court for proceedings on the merits.

The facts

On December 7, 2017, plaintiff Shawn Montgomery — a trucker himself — was stopped on the side of the road in Illinois when a Caribe Transport II truck hauling a load of plastic pots veered off course and struck his parked tractor-trailer. Montgomery survived, but his leg had to be amputated and he sustained other severe and permanent injuries. The carrier — Caribe Transport II, LLC — allegedly held a Conditional FMCSA safety rating at the time of selection, with cited deficiencies in driver qualification, hours of service, inspection/repair/ maintenance, and recordable crash rate. A carrier's safety rating is publicly available, free, and one query away on the FMCSA SAFER website.

C.H. Robinson — one of the largest freight brokers in North America — had coordinated the shipment. Montgomery sued Robinson in federal district court for negligent selection. Robinson moved to dismiss on FAAAA preemption grounds and won. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

The reasoning

Two grounds, both unanimous.

First, the safety exception. The FAAAA explicitly carves out the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles. The Court read those words plainly. A negligent- selection claim turns on the safety of the motor vehicle the broker selected — it is, in ordinary English, a claim concerning motor vehicle safety. The claim falls inside the carveout. The FAAAA does not preempt it.

Second, the "related to" inquiry. Even if the safety exception did not apply, common-law duties of ordinary care are background duties of general applicability that apply to every business in every industry. The fact that the duty happens to apply to brokers does not make it a state regulation of broker services. The FAAAA was designed to deregulate the trucking and brokerage industries economically, not to grant them immunity from the basic legal duties every business owes the public.

What changes

Before Montgomery, a broker hit with a state-law negligent-selection claim could file a motion to dismiss on FAAAA preemption grounds and had a meaningful chance of winning that motion. The case ended early. Discovery never started. The broker's carrier files were never opened.

After Montgomery, that exit ramp is gone. Brokers will defend on the merits. That means discovery — subpoenas for carrier files, vetting procedures, dispatcher-carrier communications, the safety data the broker reviewed (or didn't), and the reasoning the broker recorded (or didn't) at the point of tender.

What doesn't change

  • This is not strict liability. The standard is ordinary care.
  • The duty existed in state common law long before Montgomery. What changed is the federal preemption defense.
  • Brokers are not insurers of carrier safety. They owe a duty of reasonable care — the same duty every business owes when its decisions affect public safety.
  • Carrier liability is undisturbed. Broker liability is in addition to, not in place of, carrier liability.

Read more

Primary sources

This summary is drawn from the public record. Read the ruling and independent legal analysis directly:

Frequently asked questions

What did the Supreme Court rule in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport?▾

Unanimous 9-0 holding that the FAAAA's safety regulatory authority exception preserves state-law negligent-selection claims against freight brokers. The Court read the words 'with respect to motor vehicles' in their ordinary sense — a negligent-selection claim concerns motor vehicles because it turns on the safety of the vehicle the broker selected — and held the claim falls inside the exception. The FAAAA does not preempt it.

Does FAAAA preemption still protect freight brokers?▾

Not against state-law negligent-selection claims. The FAAAA still preempts other state-law claims related to the price, route, or service of brokerage — for example, state-law restrictions on broker-carrier contracts. But the most common and most expensive claim brokers face after a crash — negligent selection — is no longer dismissible on preemption grounds.

What is the FAAAA safety exception?▾

Section 14501(c)(2)(A) of the FAAAA preserves 'the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.' Before Montgomery, federal circuits were split on whether negligent-selection claims fell inside that exception. The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits said no — preemption. The Ninth Circuit — joined in 2025 by the Sixth (Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, 142 F.4th 847 (6th Cir. 2025)) — said yes — preserved. Montgomery resolves the split in favor of the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, nationally.

Was C.H. Robinson involved in Montgomery v. Caribe?▾

Yes. C.H. Robinson was the freight broker that coordinated the shipment hauled by Caribe Transport II, LLC, the motor carrier whose driver caused the crash that injured plaintiff Shawn Montgomery. Montgomery sued in federal district court. Robinson moved to dismiss on FAAAA preemption, won at the district court, won at the Seventh Circuit, and lost unanimously at the Supreme Court. The case is now remanded for proceedings on the merits.

What should brokers do after Montgomery?▾

Three operational changes this quarter: (1) write a carrier-selection policy if you don't have one, (2) implement a screening system that produces a timestamped, tamper-evident record for every load, (3) require carrier safety attestations on every tender that needs them under your policy. The defense is documentation at the moment of tender, not legal innovation after the fact.

Does Montgomery create strict liability for brokers?▾

No. The Court did not create a new cause of action; it allowed an existing one to proceed. Brokers still have the ordinary-care defense — if you can show you took the steps a reasonable broker would have taken before tender, and recorded them contemporaneously, you win on the merits. The broker who documented the diligence file walks. The broker who never looked at the data does not.

Document your diligence on every load.

DOTScreener runs the checks in this article automatically and produces a timestamped, hash-chained selection record at the moment of screening.

Get Started Free
100% free · No credit card · Unlimited carrier reviews