For years now, state and federal courts have been split over a simple, yet complex question: Does federal law preempt state law claims against brokers for their negligent selection (negligent hiring) of motor carriers and/or their drivers? For a minute, things were looking up for the trucking industry with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., which held that (1) the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempted state-law negligence claims, and (2) the FAAAA’s safety exception did not save the claim from preemption. See Ye v. Global Tranz Enters., Inc., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023). This victory was short-lived.
On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued its 9–0 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 146 S. Ct. 1199 (2026) and resolved the issue once and for all: a “negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Montgomery, 146 S. Ct. at 1205.
The appellate courts are quickly applying Montgomery’s holding. See, e.g., Crane v. Penske Transp. Mgmt., LLC, No. 25-40012, 2026 WL 223529, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026) (“This appeal concerns whether a motor carrier that outsourced a shipping job to a second carrier, which then outsourced it to a third carrier, can be held liable for the negligence of the driver hired by the third carrier. The district held that it could not as a matter of law. We disagree, so we REVERSE.”); Fuelling v. Echo Global Logistics, Inc., No. 25-1217, 2026 WL 1425091, at *1 (4th Cir. May 18, 2026) (“For reasons appearing to the court, this case is removed from abeyance. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of Montgomery v. Caribe Transp.”); Hodge v. Molson Coors Beverage Co USA, LLC, No. 25-12983, 2026 WL 1691357, at *1 (11th Cir. June 11, 2026) (“At the time of the district court’s opinion, we had held that the FAAAA preempted claims against brokers based on negligent selection of carriers. . . . Since then, the Supreme Court has held otherwise.”).
Limited Application of the Safety Exception
Montgomery does not create automatic liability for brokers, as the safety exception does not swallow the preemption provision. As Justice Kavanaugh opined, “the Court’s decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents.” Montgomery, 146 S. Ct. at 1208 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). Simply put, a claim against a broker for negligent hiring/selection of a motor carrier is a claim “with respect to motor vehicles,” and is therefore not preempted.
The Safety Exception Does Not Apply to Subsection (b).
The FAAAA, as written, contains a safety exception for interstate rates, routes, or services under subsection (c), but does not include a safety exception for intrastate rates, routes, or services under subsection (b). See 49 U.S.C. § 14501. The Supreme Court acknowledged the distinction and explained that it was “not obvious why Congress included a safety exception in (c) but not in (b)[,]” but “[t]he text of subsection (c)(2)(A) controls [as it is] [b]etter to live with the mystery rather than to rewrite the statute.” See Montgomery, 146 S. Ct. at 1206-07. In light of Montgomery, brokers should continue to raise FAAAA preemption as a defense with respect to intrastate cases.
At Butler Snow LLP, attorneys routinely advise clients on complex litigation involving the defense of trucking companies in a wide array of areas, including catastrophic personal injury, wrongful death claims, commercial litigation, freight and property claims, regulatory compliance, and labor and employment. With extensive experience defending logistics companies, brokers, commercial motor carriers, and drivers, they bring a practical perspective to navigating evolving litigation in the trucking industry.
