Supreme Court Ruling Makes Documented Safety Programs a Broker Credential

What did the Supreme Court change about broker liability for carrier selection?

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in May that freight brokers can face negligent hiring and carrier-selection claims under state law. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC ended the Federal Aviation Administration Act (FAAAA) preemption shield that many courts had applied since 1994. A broker who knew, or reasonably should have known, that a carrier had safety problems can no longer treat the matter as someone else's responsibility.

The ruling does not create strict liability for brokers. It does not change the underlying safety requirements carriers must meet. What it changes is the burden of proof. A broker's carrier-selection process (what it knew, when it knew it, and what it did in response) is now far more likely to be scrutinized after an accident. That makes the broker's documentation of due diligence part of their legal exposure.

What baseline checks are no longer enough

A clean public record of current authority, active insurance, or an acceptable FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) safety rating may no longer be evidence that a broker did enough. Brokers now have reason to look past those baseline checks toward carriers who can demonstrate an active, ongoing safety management program. Two carriers can look identical on paper and still represent very different levels of risk.

A documented safety program makes a carrier choice more defensible for the broker later. That is a notable shift in emphasis. For years, a safety record was treated as a compliance checkbox. Carriers would maintain the broad strokes of compliance to stay on the road, but would rarely use safety records to actively market or to win freight. Under the standard taking shape now, a documented safety record is a necessary credential. It is proof that a carrier can offer a broker, an insurer, or a court that it took safety seriously prior to an incident. It is a competitive advantage in broker selection of a carrier.

What separates a proactive safety program from a reactive one

Fleets that have gone through this transition tend to build in an adjustment period before formal coaching begins, so early reviews reflect real driving patterns rather than first-week unfamiliarity with a new system. They pair event review with consistent, documented coaching conversations, rather than letting footage accumulate without follow-up. They unify compliance data and safety performance data rather than managing elements such as hours-of-service records and driving-behavior data as unrelated metrics.

A video telematics program that identifies and addresses risks and documents the results of changes is one example of the kind of active safety management brokers are looking for. The program must be ongoing. The documentation must be retrievable. The coaching must be recorded.

How Montgomery lands on top of existing insurance pressure

The ruling also lands in the context of other changes in freight risk. Insurance underwriters have been reassessing carrier risk profiles for several underwriting cycles now. Nuclear verdicts in trucking litigation have already pushed premiums higher industry-wide. Montgomery adds another layer of exposure on top of that trend. Carriers able to point to an active, documented safety program are better positioned heading into renewal conversations, not just broker conversations.

None of this requires predicting exactly how state courts will apply Montgomery over the next few years. It requires recognizing that the standard of proof has changed, and that documented safety performance is a higher bar than bare-minimum compliance.

What small fleets need to document this week

Small fleets and owner-operators who want to stay competitive in broker selection need to start building a paper trail now. That means keeping records of driver coaching sessions with dates, topics, and outcomes. It means unifying your hours-of-service logs with your driving-behavior data so you can show a broker that you manage both as part of the same safety program. It means documenting what you did when a driver triggered a hard-brake event or a speeding alert, not just that the event occurred.

If you are running a video telematics system, make sure you are reviewing footage consistently and documenting follow-up. If you are not running one, brokers are increasingly expecting to see it. The baseline checks (current authority, active insurance, acceptable CSA scores) are still necessary. They are no longer sufficient. A broker who can show a court that they selected a carrier with a documented, active safety program has a stronger defense than a broker who can only show that the carrier was compliant on paper the day the load was tendered.

The shift is already happening. Brokers are asking for proof of safety management during onboarding. Insurers are asking for it at renewal. Courts will ask for it after an accident. Carriers who wait until after an incident to start documenting will find they have nothing to show.