Will brokers now avoid small carriers to dodge crash liability?

Will brokers now avoid small carriers to dodge crash liability?

Brokers can now be sued in any state for negligently hiring an unsafe carrier after a Supreme Court decision affirmed that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act does not preempt state tort claims. The ruling in the Montgomery case ends a circuit split that had left brokers exposed to crash liability in some states but not others. Now the risk is nationwide.

Matt Reh, trial attorney for Armstrong Teasdale who represented C.H. Robinson in the lawsuit, told FleetOwner that brokers will likely steer work toward larger motor carriers with larger fleets. Smaller carriers with smaller fleets may be left out to some degree, he said.

Harish Abbott, CEO of supply chain productivity platform Augment, said the concern is real among smaller brokerages that may not have the resources to absorb or defend the onslaught of litigation this is going to cause. The operational response is straightforward, he said: tighten carrier selection, standardize the workflow, and make sure the audit trail holds up years from now.

What does tighter carrier selection mean for owner-operators?

Brokers were already exposed to negligent hiring tort risks in select states before this decision. The ruling makes that exposure uniform. Third-party logistics providers may now have a greater incentive to work with large, established fleets over small, young carriers. Insurance costs may eventually rise.

C.H. Robinson, who argued against broker liability before the Supreme Court, said in a statement that the company will continue to operate responsibly and support stronger federal enforcement. Dorothy Capers, chief legal officer at C.H. Robinson, noted that Justices Kavanaugh and Alito stated in the concurrence that the Court's decision should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents.

Grace Keegan Johnson, attorney with regional law firm Hall Estill, said the opinion does not impact brokers who operate across the country much because they already had the risk of liability in some of the circuits. The broker would not be the one to choose the forum of a lawsuit against them, so brokers processes and procedures should already be in place to limit liability risk, she said. Unless a freight broker only operated in limited circuits, they were already at risk of liability. The Carmack Amendment says a carrier or broker can be sued in any state in which it operates.

What should small carriers verify before signing a rate confirmation?

The decision will impact market dynamics in for-hire trucking, but the scale is unclear. Brokers may now demand higher insurance minimums, more frequent FMCSA SAFER checks, or continuous monitoring of CSA scores. Small carriers with clean safety records and higher insurance coverage may find themselves competing for the same loads against larger fleets that brokers perceive as lower litigation risk.

Carriers should verify a broker's active authority and operating status before pulling any load. The Supreme Court ruling shifts liability upstream to brokers, but it does not change the carrier's obligation to confirm the broker is legitimate and financially stable. Brokers who now face crash liability may also be more aggressive in disputing freight payment claims or demanding additional documentation after delivery.

Small fleets should document every step of the vetting process they perform on brokers, checking the MC number, confirming the broker's bond status, and reviewing payment history on carrier411 or similar platforms. If a broker begins requesting unusual safety documentation or declines to tender loads without explanation, the carrier should ask whether the broker's new underwriting standards are a response to the Montgomery decision. Transparency in that conversation may reveal whether the broker is tightening carrier selection across the board or targeting specific fleet sizes.