By Adam C. ZwickerToday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear and decide whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”) preempts negligent hiring/selection claims against motor freight brokers. The Court granted a writ of certiorari in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. (Docket No. 24-1238). Shawn Montgomery was injured in an tractor-trailer accident in Illinois. He sued the driver of the truck and the motor carrier involved in the collision. He also sued C.H. Robinson, a freight broker who allegedly brokered the load that the truck driver was transporting at the time of the collision. Montgomery alleged a theory of negligent hiring/selection against C.H. Robinson for its selection of the motor carrier. He also alleged a respondeat superior theory of vicarious liability (in essence, arguing that C.H. Robinson effectively controlled the driver and motor carrier to the point that they should be considered employees of C.H. Robinson).
The federal district court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the negligent hiring/selection claims since they were bound by the 7th Circuit’s previous decision in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enters., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Circuit 2023). In Ye, the Court held that negligent hiring/selection claims against freight brokers are preempted by the relevant provisions of the FAAAA. The pertinent statutory language precludes states from “enforc[ing] a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any . . . broker . . . with respect to the transportation of property.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). However, 49 USC § 14501(c)(2)(A) says that this abolition of freight broker liability “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles . . .”
Several appellate courts have reviewed whether this federal statute preempts negligent hiring/selection claims against freight brokers and, if so, whether the “safety exception” found in 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A) saves them from preemption. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the safety exception means that such claims are not preempted by FAAAA. See Miller v C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3rd 1016 (9th Circuit 2020). Recently, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the 9th Circuit in finding that negligent hiring/selection claims are saved by the safety exception. See Cox v Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847 (6th Circuit 2025). On the other hand, as discussed above, the 7th Circuit has explicitly disagreed with the 9th Circuit and found that negligent hiring/selection claims are preempted by FAAAA and are not saved by the safety exception. The 7th Circuit is joined by the 11th in reaching this conclusion. See Aspen Am. Ins. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Circuit 2023). These decisions have created the classic “split amongst the circuits” that usually heralds the Supreme Court’s willingness to wade into and decide a legal issue. Against this background, the plaintiff in Montgomery filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court asking it to take up and decide the question. Today, the Court agreed to do so.
It is important to note that the trial and appellate courts in Montgomery did not decide the plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim on the basis of FAAAA. Instead, they held that C.H. Robinson did not control either the driver or the motor carrier as a matter of Illinois law, not that the respondeat superior claim was preempted by FAAAA. The only question that the Montgomery plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to consider is whether FAAAA preempts negligent hiring/selection claims. In our experience, plaintiffs typically assert both negligent hiring/selection and respondeat superior claims against freight brokers. Because only negligent hiring/selection claims are being evaluated by the Court, the issue of whether FAAAA preempts respondeat superior claims will still be an open question.
We expect that the Supreme Court’s decision will come sometime in the first half of 2026. The Court’s decision will be final and binding across all federal and state courts across the country. If the Supreme Court decides that negligent hiring/selection claims are preempted by FAAAA and not saved by the safety exception, then such claims will no longer be viable anywhere in the country. Conversely, if the Supreme Court decides in the opposition fashion, such claims will be viable everywhere.
However, even if the U.S. Supreme Court holds that FAAAA does not preempt negligent hiring/selection claims, freight brokers operating in Michigan should be aware that Michigan law generally holds that no one owes a duty of care when selecting and hiring an independent contractor. See Reeves v. Kmart Corp., 229 Mich. App. 466 (1998). Therefore, strong arguments exist to preclude negligent hiring/selection claims on the basis of independent Michigan law, even if the U.S. Supreme Court decides against freight brokers in Montgomery.
We continue to advise freight brokers involved in defending negligent hiring/selection and respondeat superior vicarious liability claims to assert FAAAA defenses early in the litigation process and to seek motions for summary judgment on the basis of FAAAA preemption.