The Shield Is Gone: What Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II Means for Insurance Adjusters and TPAs

By Ezequiel "Zeke" Moya, Jr. | Partner | Roerig, Oliveira & Fisher, LLP

On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that fundamentally changed the risk landscape for everyone who touches a commercial trucking claim. The ruling on Montgomery v. Caribe Transport broker liability is not an incremental shift — it is a structural change. If you handle transportation liability files — whether as an adjuster, a third-party administrator, or a claims professional managing a book of trucking accounts — this decision demands your immediate attention.

The short version: a legal defense that has shielded freight brokers for over thirty years is gone. And the ripple effects reach well beyond brokers.

What Was the Defense, and Why Did It Matter?

Since 1994, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act — the FAAAA — has preempted state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of any motor carrier or broker. In practical terms, this meant that when an injured plaintiff sued a freight broker for negligent hiring of a carrier, the broker could argue that federal law blocked the claim before it got started. In the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits especially, courts regularly threw these cases out at the pleading stage on FAAAA preemption grounds.

For claims professionals, this was valuable: it meant lower exposure on broker accounts, faster resolutions, and a clear legal argument that kept litigation from spiraling. Underwriters priced broker accounts with that shield in mind. Defense counsel briefed it reflexively. It worked.

That is no longer the case.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport Broker Liability: What the Court Decided

The facts of Montgomery are straightforward, and they will look familiar to anyone who has handled a catastrophic trucking loss. C.H. Robinson — one of the nation's largest freight brokers — arranged a shipment through an Illinois carrier named Caribe Transport II. At the time of hire, Caribe Transport held a "conditional" safety rating from the FMCSA, meaning federal regulators had already flagged the carrier for deficiencies in driver qualifications, hours of service compliance, vehicle inspections, and crash history.

A Caribe Transport driver subsequently veered off course on an Illinois highway and struck Shawn Montgomery's tractor-trailer, which was parked on the shoulder. Montgomery's leg was amputated. He sued C.H. Robinson for negligently selecting a carrier it knew — or should have known — was dangerous.

Justice Barrett, writing for a unanimous Court, held that negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers are not preempted by the FAAAA. The safety exception to the Act — which preserves state authority over "safety regulatory" matters "with respect to motor vehicles" — covers broker negligent-hiring claims. The case was remanded for trial.

The Court abrogated the Seventh Circuit's decision in Ye v. Global-Tranz Enterprises and the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, which had previously held in favor of preemption. There is no longer a favorable venue for this defense. It is gone nationwide.

Justice Kavanaugh's Concurrence: Read It Before Your Next Reserve Meeting

Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority but wrote separately to flag concerns he described as "legitimate and weighty." For claims professionals, his concurrence contains language worth understanding — and, where appropriate, deploying.

Kavanaugh acknowledged several uncomfortable realities: brokers are not always in a good position to evaluate the comparative safety of more than a million federally regulated carriers; the costs of broker litigation and insurance will cascade through the economy; and the intrastate/interstate anomaly created by the ruling has no clean answer (brokers are still fully preempted from state tort claims on intrastate shipments, but not interstate ones). He called on Congress to revisit the statute.

Why does this matter to you? Because this language supports the argument — available in every state — that a broker who reasonably relied on a carrier's federal credentials should not be held to an open-ended duty to conduct an independent safety audit. The Supreme Court itself acknowledged the concern. Use that in your reserve analysis, your coverage positions, and when briefing defense counsel.

The Texas Answer: In re Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

The Texas Supreme Court issued its own landmark ruling the day after Montgomery — and if you handle Texas accounts, this is the decision that will drive your defense strategy going forward.

In In re Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the court held that a shipper of ordinary goods does not assume a duty to prevent the independent motor carrier's torts simply by engaging that carrier for transportation. Home Depot had arranged for Werner Enterprises — a nationally regulated carrier with a "satisfactory" FMCSA safety rating — to move home improvement products between its stores. A Werner driver ran a red light and killed a motorcyclist. Plaintiffs sued Home Depot on a negligent-hiring theory. The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus and directed dismissal.

The court's reasoning rests on three pillars that should anchor your Texas defense strategy:

First, the general rule in Texas is that one who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the contractor's torts. That rule applies fully to shippers and brokers who engage federally licensed motor carriers.

Second, the FMCSA's comprehensive federal safety regime — registration, ratings, inspections, and enforcement — already exists precisely to vet carriers. Private parties cannot reasonably be expected to duplicate that system across more than a million regulated carriers. A broker or shipper who checks a carrier's registration and safety rating is entitled to rely on that federal certification.

Third, duty may arise only through narrow exceptions: where the hiring party retains or exercises actual control over the work, where the activity is inherently dangerous, where a special relationship exists, or — critically — where the hiring party takes affirmative acts that create or increase the specific risk that materialized. Shipping ordinary goods on a licensed carrier, without more, does not qualify.

The contrast with United Rentals N. Am., Inc. v. Evans (Tex. 2023) is instructive. In United Rentals, the shipper loaded oversized equipment onto an incompatible trailer without the required permit, discovered the error, and failed to notify the carrier. When the load struck a low-clearance overpass, the court found duty because the shipper's own affirmative acts created the danger on a public road. Home Depot has no such acts — the cargo was ordinary, the carrier was licensed and satisfactorily rated, and the accident had nothing to do with the shipment.

What This Means for Your Files Right Now

Existing Broker Defendants in Your Portfolio

The Montgomery v. Caribe Transport broker liability ruling requires an immediate review of any open file where a broker defendant was reserved or evaluated under the assumption that FAAAA preemption would knock out the negligent-hiring claim. This applies with particular urgency to files in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin) and Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, Georgia) jurisdictions, where preemption had been the controlling law.

Reserve adjustments should account for the full cost of litigating a negligent-hiring claim to its merits — including discovery on the broker's carrier vetting process, expert witnesses on reasonable broker practices, and trial exposure on the underlying injury.

Coverage Opinions and Reservation of Rights

If your coverage position on a broker defendant assumed FAAAA preemption as a likely near-term exit, that analysis needs to be updated. The preemption defense is not available. Your reservation of rights letter should reflect the exposure that now exists and ensure the policy's negligent-hiring coverage (or exclusions) are clearly addressed.

For Texas files specifically, the Home Depot analysis gives you a strong basis to argue that no duty exists where: the carrier was FMCSA-registered with a satisfactory rating; the cargo was ordinary and non-hazardous; the insured exercised no operational control over the driver or route; and the insured took no affirmative acts that created or increased the relevant risk. Document the factual record on each of those elements early.

The FMCSA Safety Rating Is Now a Coverage-Determinative Fact

The carrier's federal safety rating at the time of hire is no longer just background information. In Texas, it is potentially case-dispositive — a satisfactory-rated carrier supports the reliance defense; a conditional or unsatisfactory rating functionally destroys it and exposes the broker to the same fact pattern at the center of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport.

Pull the FMCSA safety rating as a standard item in your intake checklist for every transportation liability claim involving a broker or shipper defendant. Verify it through FMCSA's SAFER system and document the result in your file. If the carrier was conditionally or unsatisfactorily rated at time of hire, flag the file immediately for elevated reserves and direct defense.

Anticipate the Plaintiffs' Playbook

The plaintiffs' bar has read Home Depot too. They know the affirmative-acts exception is where the case is won or lost in Texas, and they will plead to it. Expect allegations that your insured:

• "Audited" or "approved" the carrier, thereby assuming control

• Included safety requirements in the carrier contract that created an oversight obligation

• Communicated with the driver directly on the relevant shipment

• Had prior knowledge of the specific carrier's safety deficiencies

• Pressured the carrier on delivery times in a way that contributed to the accident

  
  

Every one of these allegations, if adequately pleaded, is designed to survive a Rule 91a motion and get the case into discovery. Early investigation on all of these points — before the plaintiff's attorney gets there — is essential. Obtain and preserve your insured's carrier contracts, qualification records, and all communications related to the specific load at issue.

Underwriting Implications

If you are involved in underwriting broker liability accounts or advising on coverage structure, the takeaway is straightforward: FAAAA preemption was an invisible load-bearing wall in the risk model. It is now gone. Accounts that were priced assuming preemption would knock out negligent-hiring claims in most major jurisdictions need to be re-evaluated.

The key underwriting factors that now drive broker liability exposure are: (1) the quality and documentation of the broker's carrier vetting process; (2) the broker's practice of checking and recording FMCSA safety ratings before each engagement; (3) the terms of the broker's carrier agreements; and (4) the nature of the cargo being transported (ordinary goods carry far less exposure than hazardous, oversized, or inherently dangerous freight).

A Note on Cross-Border Operations

For those of you managing accounts involving cross-border transportation in the Texas-Mexico corridor, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport broker liability exposure and Home Depot raise an additional set of issues.

Mexican carriers operating in the United States must hold valid FMCSA operating authority and U.S.-compliant insurance — the same credentials as any domestic carrier. The Home Depot reliance defense ("I relied on the carrier's federal certification") is only available if the carrier actually holds valid, current FMCSA authority. A cross-border carrier operating without valid U.S. authority removes that defense entirely and substantially increases the broker's or shipper's exposure.

Additionally, cross-border drayage operations — the movement of loads from a port of entry to a U.S. facility — involve transportation brokers subject to Montgomery. If your book includes cross-border drayage accounts, apply the same carrier vetting analysis you would to any domestic transportation broker.

The Bottom Line

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II closed the FAAAA preemption door permanently. For claims professionals managing transportation accounts, the practical consequences are significant: higher exposure on broker defendants, more complex coverage analysis, and a greater premium on early factual investigation.

In Texas, In re Home Depot gives the defense bar a strong substitute weapon — but it is a fact-specific defense, not a blanket shield. It requires documented reliance on a satisfactory-rated carrier, absence of affirmative acts that created the risk, and absence of operational

control. Building that record starts on day one of a claim, not at the summary judgment stage.

The accounts and files that are best positioned going forward will be the ones where the insured can demonstrate a documented, reasonable, consistent process for vetting the carriers it puts on the road. Your job — and mine — is to build that record before it's needed.

Ezequiel "Zeke" Moya, Jr. is a defense attorney at Roerig, Oliveira & Fisher, LLP in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas. His practice focuses on insurance that includes trucking and commercial vehicle litigation, cross-border operations, and third-party claims administration. He represents carriers, insureds, and TPAs in matters throughout South Texas and the Texas-Mexico corridor.

This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about a specific file or coverage issue, contact your defense counsel directly.