From Highway Crash to the High Court
Trucking defense lawyers are carefully monitoring one case that was recently argued before the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took up the issue of whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) bars state negligent‑selection claims against freight brokers, or whether those claims fit within the statute’s “safety” carve‑out. The case of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC stems from a serious highway collision and subsequent lawsuit that included negligent hiring allegations against a broker that arranged a freight shipment. A federal district court allowed the claims to proceed under the safety exception. On appeal, however, the Seventh Circuit indicated such broker claims are preempted by the FAAAA. The issue has now made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where oral argument was heard on March 4, 2026. Notably, attorneys for the federal government have argued for a narrow view of the safety exception, claiming that it requires a direct connection to motor vehicles and does not extend to a broker’s carrier‑selection duties.
The Legal Question: FAAAA Preemption vs. the Safety Exception
Galloway’s trucking attorneys in Texas deal with these issues regularly, as Texas is a major freight corridor for the southwestern and southeastern United States. The meaning/applicability of the federal statute can reshape broker exposure and may impact shipper‑broker contracts, carrier vetting, and insurer defense strategies. Texas transportation defendants have recently benefited from decisions reinforcing clear limits on duty and proximate cause, which curb expansive negligence theories and re‑center cases on facts rather than generalized “safety” narratives.
The core legal issues are:
- The preemption clause. FAAAA Section 14501(c)(1) restricts a state’s ability to enact or enforce laws “related to a price, route, or service” of motor carriers, brokers, or freight forwarders in connection with transporting property. Brokers argue negligent‑selection claims target “broker services” and therefore fall within this preemption.
- The safety exception. Section 14501(c)(2)(A) preserves a state’s “safety regulatory authority … with respect to motor vehicles.” Plaintiffs argue negligent-selection is a safety rule that protects the public on the roads. The federal government has argued that the exception is limited to state rules with a direct connection to motor vehicles, not to how a broker chooses a carrier, which supports preemption of negligent‑selection suits against brokers.
Two Potential Outcomes and What It Means in Texas
The Court’s decision will likely have significant implications on brokers and carriers in Texas.
If the Court strengthens preemption:
- Broker exposure narrows. A clear ruling that negligent‑selection claims against brokers are preempted would reduce direct tort exposure for brokers in Texas, refocusing litigation on carriers and drivers and on claims more tightly linked to vehicle operation. Discovery burdens on brokers could ease, with less room for broad safety‑culture discovery not tied to specific conduct.
- Contracts and indemnity move to the foreground. Disputes may shift toward contract language in broker/carrier agreements pertaining to indemnity, representations, and warranties about safety data, as well as notice provisions. Expect more attention to papering risk allocation rather than litigating duty in tort.
- Insurer posture. Insurers defending transportation risks may recalibrate early case evaluations, reserves, and venue strategies when broker defendants face a limitation on claims against them. Coordination between broker and carrier insurers becomes even more important to avoid gaps in defense strategy and to align on discovery scope and motion practice.
If the Court broadens the safety exception:
- Broker due diligence is in focus. A ruling that leaves negligent-selection claims against brokers permissible within the safety exception will likely intensify scrutiny of how brokers vet and monitor carriers. FMCSA data pulls, inspection histories, conditional ratings, out of service rates, and how red flags are handled in real time would be things to consider when assessing a broker’s potential negligence.
- Expanded discovery and trial framing. Plaintiffs may push broader narratives about safety programs and compliance culture with an increased discovery burden on brokers and shippers. Texas legal teams should be ready to defend selection decisions and to challenge attempts to impose duties beyond what the law recognizes, as consistent with Texas courts’ emphasis on foreseeability and proximate cause in negligence.
- Insurance considerations. Expect more claims implicating broker professional liability policies and more tender/indemnity disputes. Insurers may tighten underwriting around broker safety protocols and recordkeeping while stress testing how insureds document selection decisions and escalations.
Practical Steps for Texas Brokers, Carriers, and Insurers
With Montgomery v. Caribe testing whether FAAAA preempts negligent‑selection claims against brokers, tighten what you can control: how brokers choose carriers and how they document those choices. Texas courts bring negligence back to foreseeability and proximate cause, so files should show the decision made at the time and why the specific selection was reasonable and made with safety in mind.
Brokers should use clear, objective vetting criteria (authority, insurance, ratings, inspection/crash history), pull FMCSA data on prospective carriers, and note any red flags and how they were handled. Keep broker/carrier agreements simple and aligned to the processes and procedures (representations on authority/insurance, cooperation, data‑sharing, sensible indemnity).
Carriers should keep their authority, insurance, and safety data clean and current, and share corrective action plans if issues arise so brokers and shippers can easily vet and verify.
Insurers should be on the lookout for a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, and plan for both potential outcomes as well as coordinate early among insureds so defenses and discovery stay aligned. In either scenario, aim to anchor the case in contemporaneous records and Texas negligence principles that limit liability to foreseeable, proximate risks.
Key Takeaways for Texas Transportation Stakeholders
- The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify whether and when broker negligent-selection claims proceed in state court or are curtailed by federal law.
- Regardless of the outcome, Texas brokers, carriers, and insurers can strengthen their positions now by aligning contracts, documenting vetting, and coordinating defense strategies that keep the case anchored to facts and law rather than hindsight and hypotheticals.
- Expect future litigation to test the boundaries of whatever rule the Court adopts, with plaintiffs exploring new theories and defendants pressing for clearer limits grounded in statutory text and Texas negligence principles.
As the legal landscape evolves, Galloway’s transportation team in Texas continues to guide brokers, carriers, and insurers through complex liability questions and high-value claims across the state. We focus on rapid response, fact-focused strategies, and an approach that proactively protects clients’ business interests in Texas’ dynamic litigation environment.
Disclaimer: This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Galloway and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
