In a span of just 24 hours in May 2026, the freight industry received two consequential court decisions that every broker, shipper, and carrier needs to understand. On May 14, the United States Supreme Court issued its unanimous ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, holding that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligently selecting unsafe carriers. The very next day, the Texas Supreme Court handed down In re Home Depot USA, Inc., limiting the liability of passive shippers for their carriers' independent negligence.
Read together, the two rulings draw a sharp legal line between brokers and shippers — one that has major implications for how freight intermediaries operate.
The Supreme Court Decision: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
Background
Shawn Montgomery was a commercial truck driver who suffered severe and permanent injuries when his tractor-trailer was struck by a vehicle operated by Yosniel Varela-Mojena. Varela-Mojena was hauling a load of plastic pots for Caribe Transport II, LLC, a motor carrier that had been arranged by C.H. Robinson — one of the largest freight brokers in the United States.
The facts underlying Montgomery's claim were stark. According to court documents, the federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) had flagged Caribe Transport as deficient in multiple critical categories, including driver qualification, hours of service compliance, inspection and maintenance, and crash rate. Despite this publicly available data, C.H. Robinson had arranged the load.
Montgomery filed suit in Illinois state court, alleging that C.H. Robinson was negligent in selecting Caribe Transport as a carrier. C.H. Robinson moved to dismiss, arguing that state negligent-hiring claims against freight brokers are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), a federal statute that generally prohibits states from enacting laws "related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier."
The FAAAA Preemption Fight
The central legal question was whether the FAAAA barred Montgomery's state-law negligence claim. The FAAAA contains a safety exception that preserves state authority to regulate safety "with respect to motor vehicles." The lower courts were divided. The Seventh Circuit held that the safety exception saved the claim from preemption; other circuits had ruled differently on similar facts.
The Ruling: 9-0 for the Plaintiff
Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the unanimous opinion. The Court held that a negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker is not preempted by the FAAAA. The safety exception is broad enough to encompass state tort claims that hold brokers accountable for selecting dangerous carriers — precisely because such claims regulate safety "with respect to motor vehicles."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, filed a concurrence acknowledging the substantial implications for the brokerage industry but agreeing that the statutory text compelled the result.
What This Means for Freight Brokers
The Montgomery decision is not just about C.H. Robinson. It is a nationwide rule. Any freight broker who arranges transportation for a third party can now be sued in state court for negligently selecting a motor carrier, so long as the state's common-law standard permits such claims.
The legal standard is ordinary care — brokers must exercise reasonable care in selecting motor carriers. In practice, courts and industry observers expect this to include:
- Consulting FMCSA's Safety Measurement System (SMS) and SAFER databases before tendering a load
- Verifying active operating authority and insurance at the time of each load, not just at initial carrier setup
- Documenting the carrier vetting process so there is a paper trail showing due diligence was performed
- Declining to use carriers with significant red flags in publicly available safety data
- Reviewing carrier history after crashes, complaints, or regulatory actions
The Court's framing is broad: if a broker has access to publicly available safety data showing a carrier presents an elevated risk, and the broker assigns the load anyway, ordinary care may require that the broker pass on that carrier.
The Texas Decision: In re Home Depot USA, Inc.
Background
On May 15 — one day after Montgomery — the Texas Supreme Court decided In re Home Depot USA, Inc., a case with different facts but closely related themes.
Natalio Garcia died in a collision involving a truck operated by a driver employed by Werner Enterprises, Inc. Werner had been retained by Home Depot to haul freight. Garcia's family sued Werner, the driver, and Home Depot, alleging negligence and gross negligence. Central to the claim against Home Depot was an allegation of negligent hiring: that Home Depot knew or should have known of Werner's safety deficiencies, citing alleged FMCSA and DOT violations, and should not have contracted with Werner as a carrier.
The Ruling: Passive Shippers Get Some Protection
The Texas Supreme Court drew a critical distinction. Home Depot, it found, was a passive shipper — a company that hires a federally regulated, independent motor carrier to move goods without controlling the carrier's operations or creating special risk through the nature of the cargo or loading.
The Court held that passive shippers do not owe a broad legal duty of care to the public for the independent negligence of their carriers. In colorful language, the Court rejected the family's claim as seeking to hold Home Depot "liable twice removed" — the theory being that Home Depot negligently hired Werner, who negligently hired a negligent driver.
Absent evidence that Home Depot actually controlled Werner's operations, created a specific risk through the cargo itself, or had concrete knowledge of that specific driver's unfitness, the shipper owed no duty that would support the negligent hiring claim.
Why This Matters
The Texas ruling provides some protection for companies that simply contract with federally licensed, regulated carriers using standard commercial terms — without getting involved in carrier operations, driver selection, or dispatch decisions. For many large shippers, that is exactly their model.
However, the case also signals important limits: if a shipper takes a more active role — supervising dispatch, selecting individual drivers, dictating specific routes, or contracting in ways that blur the line between shipper and employer — that protection may erode.
The Contrast: Brokers vs. Shippers
Read together, the two decisions reveal a meaningful legal asymmetry:
| Freight Brokers | Passive Shippers | |
|---|---|---|
| Legal framework | Federal preemption removed (Montgomery) | State common-law duty limited (Home Depot) |
| Duty of care | Must exercise ordinary care in carrier selection | Generally no broad duty for carrier's independent acts |
| Key risk factor | Access to public safety data and failure to act on it | Active involvement in carrier operations or driver selection |
| Post-ruling posture | Expanded exposure nationwide | Limited, but not eliminated, exposure in Texas |
The logic makes intuitive sense. Freight brokers exist specifically to evaluate and select carriers on behalf of shippers. That selection function is their primary value proposition. A broker who fails to do that responsibly, when publicly available data flags serious risk, is not just a passive bystander — they are a decision-maker who could have prevented the harm.
A large retailer like Home Depot, by contrast, is primarily in the business of selling goods, not evaluating trucking companies. Texas determined that layering a duty of transport-safety expertise onto every shipper would be disproportionate and impractical.
Practical Implications: What Brokers Should Do Now
The Montgomery decision does not require perfection — it requires ordinary care. Here is a practical framework:
1. Strengthen Carrier Vetting at Onboarding
Pull FMCSA data on every new carrier before adding them to your network. Review SMS scores in each BASIC category, especially Crash Indicator, Driver Fitness, and Hours-of-Service Compliance. Document what you found and when.
2. Re-Verify Before Each Load
Authority and insurance can lapse between onboarding and dispatch. Verify current authority (operating and broker) and certificate of insurance at the time of tender, not just when the carrier was first approved.
3. Keep Records
If a dispute arises, your defense will depend heavily on demonstrating a documented, consistent vetting process. A timestamp-stamped record of the safety data you reviewed at the time of selection is invaluable.
4. Set Internal Red-Flag Thresholds
Establish internal policies about what safety scores or regulatory findings trigger automatic carrier disqualification. Having a written policy you applied consistently is far stronger than ad hoc decisions made without documentation.
5. Review Your Insurance Coverage
Talk to your insurance broker about whether your current broker liability policy addresses negligent-hiring claims. Many policies have exclusions or limitations in this area that may warrant re-evaluation after Montgomery.
6. Consult Legal Counsel
The Montgomery decision resolved the federal preemption question, but state-by-state negligent-hiring standards still vary. A transportation attorney can assess your specific exposure and help you tailor your compliance approach.
How APL Approaches Carrier Vetting
At APL Transportation & Logistics, responsible carrier selection is foundational to how we operate — not a box to check. Before any carrier hauls freight for an APL-arranged load, we verify:
- Active FMCSA operating authority (MC and DOT numbers confirmed)
- Insurance certificates meeting minimum coverage thresholds
- Safety rating through the FMCSA SAFER system
- SMS scores for key BASIC categories
- Satisfactory compliance history with no active out-of-service orders
We maintain records of these checks and review carrier qualifications continuously, not just at initial setup. The Montgomery decision validates this approach — and underscores why brokers who cut corners on carrier vetting face real legal and financial exposure.
Conclusion
The last week of May 2026 will be remembered as a turning point in freight law. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II has given plaintiffs a viable nationwide pathway to hold freight brokers accountable for negligent carrier selection. In re Home Depot has clarified that passive shippers in Texas are not automatically swept into that liability net.
For freight brokers, the message is clear: the carrier selection decision matters, it is legally consequential, and the standard of care is publicly documented safety data that every broker can access today. There is no longer any ambiguity about whether state tort claims can reach broker conduct. The question now is whether your vetting process measures up.
If you have questions about how these decisions might affect your supply chain or carrier relationships, reach out to our team — we're happy to discuss how we approach compliance and what it means for working with APL.
Sources: Supreme Court Opinion, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II (No. 24-1238) · SCOTUSblog case page · FreightWaves coverage · Kennedys Law — In re Home Depot analysis · FreightWaves — Texas ruling