The Broker Picked the Trucking Company. What Montgomery Changes for Florida Crash Claims
A tractor-trailer may carry one company’s logo, haul another company’s freight, and operate under a carrier selected by a third company that never touched the truck. After a serious Florida crash, that third company—the freight broker—can be easy to overlook. It may also hold the records that explain why the carrier received the load in the first place.
For years, freight brokers argued that a federal deregulation law wiped out state-law claims accusing them of negligently choosing an unsafe motor carrier. In May 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC. The unanimous decision does not make brokers automatically liable for truck crashes. It does something more precise: it allows a motor-vehicle-safety claim based on negligent carrier selection to get past the federal preemption defense.
That distinction matters. The courthouse door may be open, but a Florida claimant still has to identify who did what, prove that the broker’s selection process was negligent under applicable law, and connect that failure to the collision and resulting injuries.
The company that booked the load may not own the truck
Federal regulations define a broker as a person who, for compensation, arranges or offers to arrange transportation of property by an authorized motor carrier. A broker ordinarily does not drive the tractor, employ the driver, maintain the brakes, or own the trailer. Its role is to connect freight with a carrier.
That does not mean the broker’s decisions are irrelevant. A broker may have chosen the carrier, checked—or failed to check—its operating authority and insurance, reviewed safety information, imposed onboarding requirements, or ignored warning signs to move a load quickly. Those facts are distinct from the carrier’s duties to use qualified drivers and safe equipment, which are central to many Florida truck accident claims.
The labels can also be misleading. A logistics company may call itself a broker in a contract while exercising more control over transportation than the label suggests. Conversely, a shipper may recommend a route or delivery window without becoming a motor carrier. The company’s actual conduct, its contracts, and the communications surrounding the shipment all matter.
What the Supreme Court decided in Montgomery
The case arose after a motorist was seriously injured in a crash involving a tractor-trailer. The complaint alleged that C.H. Robinson Worldwide, a freight broker, negligently selected Caribe Transport II to haul the load. According to the allegations described by the Supreme Court, Caribe had a conditional federal safety rating based on concerns involving driver qualifications, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and its crash rate.
The broker relied on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, commonly called the FAAAA. Its general preemption clause restricts states from enforcing laws related to a broker’s prices, routes, or services. But Congress included a safety exception preserving state authority “with respect to motor vehicles.” The question was whether a negligent-selection claim tied to an unsafe motor carrier fell inside that exception.
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court held that it did. The Court reasoned that the claim targeted the broker’s selection of a motor carrier because that choice allegedly created an unreasonable risk of a motor-vehicle accident. The Court assumed, without deciding, that the FAAAA’s general preemption clause would otherwise reach the claim. It then held that the safety exception saved the claim from preemption. The controlling statutory language appears in 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c).
The Court did not decide whether the broker was negligent. It did not decide what facts establish a broker’s duty under a particular state’s law. And it did not convert every dispute involving a broker into a motor-vehicle-safety case. Its holding addressed the threshold federal defense: Congress did not preempt this kind of negligent-selection claim when it genuinely concerns motor-vehicle safety.
Why the ruling changes the analysis in Florida
Florida sits within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Before Montgomery, the Eleventh Circuit had taken a restrictive view of the safety exception in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc.. That case involved stolen cargo, not a person injured in a highway collision. The court held that a negligent-selection claim against a broker was preempted and that the safety exception did not save it.
Montgomery now supplies the controlling answer for a bodily-injury claim alleging that a broker selected an unsafe carrier and thereby created a risk of a motor-vehicle crash. Courts cannot use the former narrow understanding of the safety exception to dismiss that claim simply because it challenges a broker’s carrier-selection service.
The difference between the cases remains important. A cargo-loss dispute about a fraudulent carrier is not the same as a personal-injury claim arising from unsafe highway operations. Montgomery protects claims that have a real connection to motor-vehicle safety; it does not erase FAAAA preemption across the board.
The ruling removes a defense; it does not prove negligence
A crash victim cannot establish broker liability merely by showing that a broker arranged the load. The claimant still needs evidence supporting the elements of a negligence claim. Among other questions, the case may turn on what information was reasonably available when the carrier was selected, what the broker actually reviewed, whether warning signs made the choice unreasonable, and whether a careful selection process would have prevented the carrier from receiving the shipment.
Causation is equally important. Suppose a broker overlooked a carrier’s history of hours-of-service violations, and fatigue later played a demonstrable role in the wreck. That may present a different causal picture from a collision caused by an unforeseeable event unrelated to the concern the broker allegedly ignored. Tucker Law’s discussion of truck driver fatigue explains why logs, dispatch records, and the driver’s schedule can be critical. When phone use or in-cab technology is involved, distraction evidence may point to a different chain of responsibility.
Florida’s modified comparative-fault law can add another layer. A jury may be asked to allocate fault among the driver, motor carrier, broker, other companies, and the injured person when the evidence supports those positions. Identifying a viable broker claim does not replace the claims against the driver or carrier. It may add another responsible actor to a case built around the same collision.
The carrier-selection file can be as important as the driver file
A motor carrier’s records tell one part of the story: the driver qualification file, inspection and maintenance history, electronic logging data, dispatch instructions, drug-and-alcohol records where discoverable, and post-crash investigation. A broker claim requires a second track of evidence focused on the decision to entrust the load to that carrier.
That track may include the broker-carrier agreement, the load tender, onboarding questionnaires, insurance certificates, operating-authority checks, safety-rating information, internal approval criteria, exception requests, prior complaints, and communications among the broker, shipper, carrier, and driver. The timing matters. A current safety profile obtained months after the crash cannot by itself prove what the broker knew or could reasonably have learned when it assigned the load.
Public federal information can provide leads. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Company Snapshot identifies carriers and displays certain operating, inspection, and crash information. But a public snapshot is not a substitute for the broker’s contemporaneous file or for a careful analysis of what the data meant at the relevant time. The most probative record may be an internal note showing why an automated warning was overridden—or that no review occurred at all.
Contract language is the beginning, not the end
In a complex shipment, the same company may perform more than one function. It may broker some loads, transport others under its own authority, provide warehousing, or exercise operational control through a managed-transportation agreement. The legal analysis should not stop at a logo, a website description, or a clause declaring that all carriers are independent contractors.
The investigation should trace the shipment from the shipper’s request through carrier selection, dispatch, pickup, transit, and delivery. Who promised to transport the freight? Who chose the carrier? Who could reject the driver or equipment? Who set mandatory operating instructions? Who tracked the truck and communicated with the driver? Those facts help distinguish a true brokerage role from direct motor-carrier operations or another form of control.
This is one reason serious semi-truck accident cases should not be evaluated like ordinary two-car collisions. The police report may name the driver and registered owner while omitting the broker, shipper, logistics platform, equipment lessor, or maintenance contractor. The commercial paper trail can reveal parties and insurance questions that are invisible at the scene.
Digital records can disappear before the legal theory is clear
Brokerage platforms can record carrier searches, approval flags, safety-data pulls, rate confirmations, chat messages, and the identity of the employee who assigned the load. The truck may generate electronic logging, telematics, event-data, and camera files. Shippers and warehouses may hold gate records and video. Each system can have a different retention period.
A focused preservation request should therefore reach beyond the tractor and driver. It may need to identify the shipment number, broker file, platform records, carrier-onboarding material, communications, and audit history, along with the physical and electronic evidence held by the motor carrier. Tucker Law’s article on vanishing evidence after a Florida car-truck collision explains why waiting can change what is available.
The need is especially acute when a collision causes a catastrophic injury. Future medical care, reduced earning capacity, and long-term assistance may make the full damages far greater than an early estimate. A complete liability investigation should happen before an injured person accepts a settlement based only on the most visible insurance policy.
What Montgomery does—and does not—change
The decision creates a nationally uniform answer to one recurring preemption question. A freight broker cannot defeat a motor-vehicle-safety negligent-selection claim solely by arguing that the claim relates to brokerage services under the FAAAA. That is a significant change for Florida crash litigation.
But Montgomery is not a finding that every broker owes the same duty in every transaction, that federal safety data automatically establishes negligence, or that a broker is responsible whenever its selected carrier crashes. Those questions remain dependent on governing state law and the facts. Claims unrelated to motor-vehicle safety may still face preemption. Contractual indemnity and insurance disputes may proceed under still other rules.
The practical lesson is not “sue the broker.” It is “investigate the selection.” When a commercial carrier was chosen through a broker, the selection process deserves the same early scrutiny as the driver, truck, and motor carrier.
A fuller investigation can change the map of the case
A devastating truck crash rarely arrives with a complete organizational chart. The first documents may identify only the driver and carrier. Montgomery makes clear that the company that selected the carrier cannot be written out of a motor-vehicle-safety investigation by a blanket federal-preemption argument.
If you or a family member was seriously injured in a Florida commercial-truck crash, Tucker Law can examine the shipment chain, preserve time-sensitive records, and evaluate the roles of the driver, carrier, broker, and other companies. Contact Tucker Law to discuss what the available evidence may show.
