The repercussions of the May 14, 2026, ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on broker liability are still shaking the trucking industry. They cannot be ignored. That was the topic of “Unrated and Exposed: Motor Carrier Risk After the Montgomery Ruling,” an Aug. 11 webinar hosted by SambaSafety. The event was moderated by John Diana, SambaSafety’s general counsel and chief compliance officer.
Oddly enough, the rule that impacted trucking so greatly was included in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), the law that created the agency that regulates air travel in the U.S. The law, however, reserved most control of the transportation industry to the federal government, so it applied to forms of transportation other than air.
But lawmakers wanted to make sure individual states and other jurisdictions could pass their own transportation safety laws, so they inserted a “savings clause” in the legislation. That clause reserves price, route and service regulation to the federal government while permitting states to impose safety regulations, particularly concerning vehicles.
In the Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II LLC case, the broker argued that the savings clause exempted them from the lawsuit because it was handled in a state court. SCOTUS disagreed in a unanimous decision, opening the broker — C.H. Robinson — to punitive damages.
If brokers can be held liable for accidents the carriers they choose are involved in, those carriers had better be ready for much more scrutiny when they deal with brokers.
So, what’s changed?
The first topic of the Aug. 11 webinar discussed exactly what the SCOTUS ruling changed.
Scopelitis Attorney Greg Lawton kicked off the conversation by explaining that plaintiff attorneys often look for more “pockets” to draw from in litigation.
“It’s becoming increasingly popular that when a carrier is involved in a highway accident, the plaintiff’s bar will also bring an action against the broker that arranged for the transportation of that shipment,” he said. “The plaintiff’s bar is often motivated to find additional pockets and increase the potential recovery pool.”
Lawton went on to explain two types of claims brought against brokers:
- Negligent selection claims accuse the broker of not exercising “reasonable or ordinary care” in selecting a motor carrier to haul its freight.
- Vicarious liability claims attempt to pin liability on the broker for the driver’s negligence.
Vicarious liability claims are harder to convince juries of, because the plaintiff must show the broker had some sort of control over the driver’s actions. For example, if the broker demands to see the driver’s Motor Vehicle Record (MVR), it could be argued that the broker had an opportunity to refuse that driver but didn’t.
When the broker vets the carrier only, assuming that the carrier has responsibility for choosing its drivers, vicarious liability is more difficult to prove.
Carriers that also act as brokers may have trouble getting liability insurance.
According to Steve Wilhelms, CEO of NextRisk, carriers that also have a brokerage department may have a difficult time obtaining liability insurance because of the ruling.
“For years, motor carriers would list their for-hire authority along with their brokerage authority on their MCS 150,” he said. “It’s quickly becoming a best practice to separate those two.”
Otherwise, he explained, the carrier could be in a situation where neither enterprise is covered by insurance.
Evaluating carriers’ safety records is essential.
Brian Hammer, senior risk management consultant at Nationwide insurance, spoke to how brokers should evaluate the safety records of carriers they consider working with.
“They can’t rely on the federal government to tell them whether that carrier is good or not,” he said, indicating that brokers should look beyond CSA scores and other data available from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
“Companies that are better managed are companies that have strong written policies and procedures,” Hammer continued. “They enforce those policies and procedures, and FMCSA has their safety management control model in place, and that really mirrors what that says.”
Written policies and enforcement records are more likely to be found at larger carriers. However, the vast majority of registered carriers are those with five or fewer trucks. At that size, the owner is often the driver of one of the trucks, and there’s no safety or compliance manager or department. Smaller carriers could find themselves excluded from a brokers list of acceptable carriers, unable to obtain loads.
Be aware of carrier responsibilities.
Wilhelms pointed out that four carrier responsibilities were specifically mentioned in the Montgomery v. Caribe II ruling:
- Driver qualification files;
- Hours of service;
- Vehicle inspections; and
- Repair and maintenance.
Maintaining good records in all four categories — and being able to show both training and remedial actions such as coaching — could help convince balky insurers that even a small carrier has a sound safety management program.
Carriers must enforce safety policies.
“It’s important that carriers have not only safety programs and policies in place, but that they’re actually enforcing those safety policies,” Lawton said. “Because what they do on the back end will directly impact what brokers see in these vetting protocols in looking at that publicly available information.
“A carrier that audits its driver’s records of duty status for hours-of-service compliance and trains its drivers when there are certain violations in taking that corrective action is likely to have a better hours-of-service CSA score than a carrier that doesn’t implement these steps,” he continued. That can put the first carrier in a better position to be more eligible with more brokers to grow its business and give more freight.”
Technology is not a cure-all.
SambaSafety’s Diana cautioned that using available technology, such as AI-powered dash video systems, is only part of the solution.
“Having telematics or monitoring technology isn’t enough on its own,” he said. “What matters is what motor carriers are actually acting on the data.”
Hammer agreed.
“As an insurance company, it doesn’t matter to us that you have a camera in your truck,” he noted. “It matters how you utilize that camera, how you use the data, how you manage your drivers to make sure they don’t have violations. And if they do, how do you do you do training to keep that from happening again?”
As the landscape of dealing with brokers changes, carriers will be pressured to demonstrate that they aren’t a risk to brokers that consider using them.
Cliff Abbott is an experienced commercial vehicle driver and owner-operator who still holds a CDL in his home state of Alabama. In nearly 40 years in trucking, he’s been an instructor and trainer and has managed safety and recruiting operations for several carriers. Having never lost his love of the road, Cliff has written a book and hundreds of songs and has been writing for The Trucker for more than a decade.
