As we write this installment of PARCEL Counselin early July, the transportation community is all abuzz about the unanimous opinion issued on May 14, 2026 by the United States Supreme Court in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II. This begs the question as to what is the significance of this decision for a parcel shipper?
The decision resolved a split among the federal circuit courts regarding the scope of federal preemption of state laws under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) and whether state‑law negligent‑hiring claims against motor carrier property brokers are preempted when the allegations concern a broker’s failure to use reasonable care in selecting a motor carrier involved in an accident that injures a third party. In such circumstances, the Court held that the FAAAA does not bar such claims and brokers may be sued under state law for negligent selection of carriers.
Despite industry commentary suggesting that Montgomery creates a new legal standard or expands broker liability, the decision does not break new ground. Shippers, as well as brokers, have faced negligent‑hiring claims for more than twenty years, beginning with Schramm v. Foster in 2004.
Analyzing the technical legal question before the Court assists in understanding the implications of the Montgomery decision. The FAAAA broadly prohibits states from enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service” of a motor carrier or broker. At the same time, the statute preserves “the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” In Montgomery the claim before the Supreme Court – that the plaintiff had been injured in a trucking accident due to the broker’s alleged negligent hiring of a motor carrier with a conditional FMCSA safety rating - concerned the safe operation of motor vehicles. Accordingly, such state law claims are not preempted.
Defining “reasonable care” in selecting a motor carrier is fact‑specific and evolving. Approximately 17% of motor carriers hold a safety fitness rating of satisfactory, conditional, or unsatisfactory. The remaining 83% are unrated (source: Carrier411.com). Shippers hiring “unrated” carriers face challenges due to the absence of a comprehensive federal framework for evaluating them. See“TheCSA/Schramm Problem - Part I: A Complex Situation” (April 2012) and “Part II” (May 2012). Since the federal government determines safety fitness and authorizes the operations of motor carriers, shippers and brokers have reasonable grounds to believe that it is the obligation of the government, not the shipper or broker hiring the carrier, to determine its operational fitness.
Until clearer federal standards emerge — whether through regulation or legislation—parcel shippers and brokers should proactively review and strengthen their carrier‑vetting procedures. This includes aligning internal policies with insurer expectations; understanding coverage limitations; and ensuring that vetting practices are consistently applied and have an auditable record showing how the carrier was selected at the time it was engaged. Robust vetting programs will help mitigate exposure to negligent‑hiring claims in the post‑Montgomery environment.
All for now!
Brent Wm. Primus, J.D., is the CEO of Primus Law Office, P.A., the Senior Editor of transportlawtexts, inc., and Director of Virtual Education for the Transportation and Logistics Council, Inc.
Andrew M. Danas is a Partner, Grove, Jaskiewicz and Cobert, LLP, Washington, D.C. Visit www.gjcobert.com or email adanas@danaslaw.com for more information. The information contained in this article is intended to be general background information. It does not constitute and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Readers should contact a qualified attorney should they have a specific legal question.
Previous columns, including those of William J. Augello, may be found on PARCELindustry.com. Your questions are welcome at brent@primuslawoffice.com
This article originally appeared in the July/August, 2026 issue of PARCEL.
