After Montgomery: Carrier Selection Under Scrutiny

The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2026 decision in Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, has brought renewed attention to the role freight brokers play in carrier selection. The Court held that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) does not categorically preempt state-law negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers when those claims concern the safety of motor vehicles. As a result, claims that previously could have been dismissed on federal preemption grounds may now proceed, placing greater focus on the process brokers use to select and evaluate motor carriers. (Read our May article here)

The significance of the decision extends beyond the parties in Montgomery. While the Court did not determine whether the broker in that case was negligent or liable—and the underlying negligent-hiring claims remain to be decided—the decision changes the legal landscape for brokers and creates a greater need to examine how carrier-selection decisions are made, what information is considered, and how those decisions are documented.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision, the Montgomery litigation has continued to move forward. On July 8, 2026, the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment that had dismissed Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claims and remanded the case to the Southern District of Illinois for further proceedings. At the same time, the transportation industry has begun addressing the practical implications of the decision. In June 2026, the Transportation Intermediaries Association petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for uniform carrier-vetting rules and identification of high-risk carriers. These developments underscore the importance of the carrier-selection process and the information brokers use—and retain—when making those decisions.

Carriers have long been on the front lines as one of the primary targets in transportation litigation. After all, they are the actual point where the rubber meets the road. Carrier safety practices, standards, and protocols have long been fodder for litigation. Montgomery does not eliminate the carrier’s role in that analysis, but it makes clear that plaintiffs may also pursue claims directed at the broker’s role in selecting the carrier.

Different variations on existing theories are likely to continue developing, and claims of negligent selection and negligent hiring may receive renewed attention. Plaintiffs may seek to extend liability beyond the motor carrier by examining the process through which the broker selected the carrier in the first place.

For businesses that rely on shipping, that means taking a closer look at how goods are moved. What system is the shipper using to select its broker? What does the broker do to identify a carrier, and what review is performed before that carrier is approved? Are safety ratings reviewed? Is the carrier’s performance history considered? What about inspection records, prior accidents, driver qualifications, or other available safety information? How much insurance does the carrier carry? Are different loads, distances, equipment requirements, or complex packaging issues considered when selecting the carrier?

These questions are not merely theoretical. The Supreme Court’s decision places additional importance on the process of carrier selection and the information that may demonstrate whether reasonable care was exercised. That may result in additional research, documentation, and review as shippers and brokers evaluate the carriers they use.

Perhaps the most important question brokers should now be asking is: What should be in the carrier-vetting file if the broker’s selection decision is later challenged? It is one thing to have a carrier-vetting process; it is another to be able to demonstrate what information was reviewed, what factors were considered, and why the carrier was selected for a particular shipment.

Carriers should also consider how their own operations appear to a broker evaluating them for a shipment. What steps have you taken not only to bulletproof your yard, but also to adequately demonstrate the safety and professionalism of your operation? Do you rely solely on your CSA information and the snapshot available through SAFER? Are your safety practices, equipment, maintenance procedures, qualifications, and records current and readily available?

Now more than ever, carriers should be able to showcase their business model, their professionalism, and their commitment to safe practices. A carrier should be able to demonstrate that its operation reflects the reputation it has worked hard to develop and that it has the equipment, personnel, policies, and procedures appropriate for the hauls it performs. The carrier-selection process works both ways: brokers are evaluating carriers, and carriers should be prepared to demonstrate why they are a responsible choice.

Drivers, carriers, brokers, and shippers can all benefit from having their practices reviewed before a problem arises. Identifying potential weaknesses, strengthening policies and procedures, and documenting the steps taken to promote safe operations can put businesses in a better position to explain and defend their decisions if those decisions are later challenged.

The Montgomery decision does not establish that every broker will be liable whenever a carrier it selects is involved in an accident, nor does it determine whether Montgomery ultimately will prevail on his negligent-hiring claim. What the decision does make clear is that carrier selection can become the subject of state-law litigation, and the process used to select and evaluate a carrier may receive significant scrutiny.

Our office works hand in hand with many of our partners in different aspects of the transportation business, and we want to help. If you have questions about how the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery may impact your business, or if you would like to discuss ways to improve your business plan and practices before litigation—or even before an accident—feel free to contact the lawyers at Setliff Law, PC.

If you have specific questions related to this article, please contact John Stacy (jstacy@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1263 or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1260.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Because every legal matter is different, readers should consult with qualified counsel regarding their specific circumstances.