Why this exists
The Montgomery ruling and what it changed for brokers and shippers.
On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC by a 9–0 vote. The opinion was written by Justice Barrett, with a concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh joined by Justice Alito.
The decision is short. Its consequences are not.
What the Court actually held
Before Montgomery, freight brokers had a federal preemption shield. The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) blocked most state-law claims against brokers that touched their "prices, routes, or services." Lower courts had split for years on whether that shield covered negligent-hiring claims — the claim that a broker chose an unsafe carrier and a person got killed as a result.
Montgomery ended the split. The FAAAA's safety exception covers carrier selection, because carrier selection "concerns motor vehicles." State-law negligent-hiring claims against brokers are no longer preempted. They proceed on the merits.
Why this also reaches shippers
The Court named brokers because Caribe was a broker. But the reasoning is about state-law negligent-hiring claims and the FAAAA's safety exception — both of which apply equally to anyone who selects a motor carrier. Shippers who tender loads directly to carriers (skipping the broker) are exposed to the same state-law claims, under the same body of state common law that Montgomery freed up to operate.
That's why this tool treats brokers and shippers as one audience. The legal exposure is the same.
The standard, in plain English
Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence is the operative reading of what "ordinary care" looks like for a broker (or shipper) selecting a carrier:
Brokers must exercise ordinary care and ask the hard questions. Brokers that hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy should be able to defeat tort claims on the merits.
Two pieces matter:
- Ordinary care. Not a heroic investigation, not a guarantee of safety. The same standard of "what a reasonably prudent person would do" that runs through state tort law everywhere else.
- Ask the hard questions. And — because lawyers will be the ones reading your file three years from now — be able to show you asked them.
The Court did not say what "the hard questions" are. Industry commentary converges on the obvious ones: is the carrier real, is their authority active, is their insurance in force, what does FMCSA's own safety data show, are there chameleon-carrier indicators, did you verify the truck that actually showed up.
Why a documented vetting process is the defense
Negligent-hiring suits hinge on what a broker or shipper knew, or should have known, at the time they tendered a load. Three years after a fatal crash, that question is litigated through documents — what the broker had on file, when they pulled it, what they did with it.
If the broker can produce a timestamped record of an FMCSA check, an insurance verification, a Secretary of State confirmation, and a pickup-day verification of the truck, the plaintiff's lawyer is arguing against a paper trail of ordinary care. That argument is hard.
If the broker has nothing — or has a vague recollection that they "usually check FMCSA" — the same argument is easy.
The point of this tool is to make that paper trail cheap, fast, and consistent.
What this tool does not do
It does not predict crashes. It does not score carriers. It does not tell you whether to hire or reject. Montgomery did not ask anyone to predict crashes; it asked brokers and shippers to do ordinary diligence and keep a record of it.
See What we don’t do for the full posture.