When a truck crashes, the driver and the carrier are the obvious targets in a lawsuit. But what about the freight broker who hired that carrier in the first place? That question is splitting the federal courts, and a 2024 decision, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, is one of the most important rulings on it.
Here is what it says, in plain English. This is general information, not legal advice.
The case in brief
A fatal crash led to a lawsuit that named not just the motor carrier, but the broker that arranged the load. The theory was negligent hiring (also called negligent selection): the argument that the broker should be on the hook because it chose a carrier it should have known was unsafe.
In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on that theory in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II.
What the court decided
The court held that the claim against the broker was preempted by a federal law: the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, or F4A (49 U.S.C. section 14501(c)). That law bars states from enforcing rules "related to a price, route, or service" of a broker. A negligent-hiring lawsuit, the court reasoned, is exactly that kind of state rule reaching into how a broker selects carriers.
The plaintiff pointed to the law's safety exception, which preserves a state's authority over motor vehicle safety. The court rejected it: that exception is about the safe operation of motor vehicles, and a broker does not own or operate the truck. So the exception did not save the claim.
In short, under Montgomery, in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin), a broker generally cannot be sued for negligently hiring the carrier that crashed.
Why the courts disagree
This is not settled law nationwide. The circuits have split:
- The Ninth Circuit went the other way in Miller v. C.H. Robinson (2020), holding the safety exception did let a negligent-hiring claim proceed. The Supreme Court declined to take that case.
- The Eleventh Circuit (Aspen American Insurance v. Landstar) and now the Seventh Circuit in Montgomery came down on the side of preemption, shielding the broker.
So whether a broker can be sued for hiring a bad carrier can depend on which circuit the case lands in. That kind of split is the sort of thing the Supreme Court eventually steps in to settle.
What it means if you drive
You are the carrier or the driver, not the broker, so this case is not about your detention claim directly. But it shapes the world you run in:
- Brokers feel less exposed for the carriers they pick, which affects how they vet loads and who they hand them to.
- It is a reminder that the broker-carrier-driver chain runs on federal law (the F4A), the same family of rules that touches how detention and other charges get treated.
- For the financial-responsibility side of carrier liability, see 49 CFR Part 387 explained. For your side of broker disputes, see can a broker legally refuse to pay detention.
The bottom line
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II makes it harder, at least in some circuits, to hold a broker liable when a carrier it hired causes a crash. The law is still moving, and none of this is legal advice. If you are dealing with an accident or a liability question, talk to a transportation attorney licensed in your state.
What HaulClaim handles is simpler and squarely yours: the detention you are owed. Log the load, and we file the claim and chase the broker. Free for a limited time — you keep 100% of what we recover.