Sixth Circuit Adds Fuel to the Fight Over Broker Liability

Whether freight brokers can be held liable for crashes caused by the motor carriers they hire remains one of the most unsettled issues in transportation law. The debate centers on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), enacted in 1994 to prevent states from enforcing laws that interfere with the prices, routes, or services of carriers and brokers in interstate commerce (49 U.S.C. § 14501). But the statute includes a short, much-litigated carve-out: it does not preempt a state’s “safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles.”

That brief exception has created a wide divide. Some courts view negligent-hiring claims against brokers as falling squarely within a state’s traditional safety authority. In their view, a broker’s decision about which motor carrier will move a shipment has direct safety implications. Selecting a carrier with a poor safety history or known violations creates risks that extend well beyond commercial concerns and threaten public safety. Courts adopting this approach have allowed negligent-hiring claims to proceed under the FAAAA’s safety exception.

Other courts take the opposite view. Focusing on the text of the statute, they reason that a broker’s role—arranging transportation between shippers and carriers—is a “service” Congress intended to shield from state interference. Because brokers do not own or operate the trucks involved, these courts conclude that negligent-hiring suits do not regulate motor-vehicle safety at all; instead, they impose state-law duties on a federally protected service. Under this reasoning, the FAAAA preempts such claims entirely, and brokers cannot be sued for crashes involving the carriers they hire.

This divide has resulted in a clear circuit split. The Ninth and Sixth Circuits have held that the safety exception permits negligent-hiring claims to go forward. See Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016, 1030–31 (9th Cir. 2020); Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F.4th 847, 851 (6th Cir. 2025). The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, however, have held that the claims are preempted. See Ye v. GlobalTranz Enters., Inc., 74 F.4th 453, 464 (7th Cir. 2023); Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261, 1272 (11th Cir. 2023). The result is an uneven legal landscape where a broker’s potential exposure depends on where a crash occurs. In one jurisdiction, a negligence claim may proceed to trial; in another, it may be dismissed at the outset.

The key question—whether a common-law negligence claim against a freight broker based on its carrier-selection decision is preempted because it falls outside the FAAAA’s safety exception under § 14501(c)(2)(A)—is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. The stakes are significant for brokers, insurers, and shippers. A ruling aligned with the Ninth and Sixth Circuits would increase brokers’ potential liability nationwide; a ruling aligned with the Seventh and Eleventh would bar such claims entirely. For now, the Court has not yet decided whether it will take up the issue, leaving lower courts to continue grappling with the divide.

In the meantime, whether brokers should operate as though the broader view of liability applies depends on the states in which they operate. The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits cover Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The Sixth and Ninth Circuits cover Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington. As a practical matter, the safest course is to act as if the safety exception does not apply. That means maintaining robust carrier-vetting procedures, documenting safety-rating and inspection-history reviews, and ensuring that contracts clearly define who bears responsibility for vehicle operation and regulatory compliance. Periodic re-screening and written safety protocols can further reduce exposure.

The broader trend is clear: carrier selection is no longer viewed as a purely logistical decision—it is increasingly treated as a safety decision. Even as courts continue to disagree about how the FAAAA’s safety exception applies to freight brokers, regulators and judges expect brokers to take an active role in keeping unsafe carriers off the road. The best way to prepare for whatever comes next is to embed that expectation into carrier-selection procedures now.

At least until the Supreme Court settles the question … if it settles the question.

If you have questions about this article or about broker liability more broadly, please contact Natalie Lyon (nlyon@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1275 or Mitchell Goldstein (mgoldstein@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1269.