Newsroom
By Matthew McColgan, a Look at the United States Supreme Court’s Recent Unanimous Decision Impacting Freight Brokers Nationwide in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
“BETTER TO LIVE WITH THE MYSTERY”
A WATERSHED MOMENT FOR BROKER LIABILITY: THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY REVIVES NEGLIGENT HIRING CLAIMS AGAINST FREIGHT BROKERS IN MONTGOMERY V. CARIBE TRANSPORT II, LLC
Matthew J. McColgan, Esquire
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous and highly consequential decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 LX 272294 (May 14, 2026) holding that state law negligence claims against freight brokers are not preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”). The Court’s opinion, authored by Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, solidifies a deep circuit split and significantly reshapes the litigation landscape in trucking litigation.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC stems from a catastrophic trucking collision involving plaintiff Shawn Montgomery and a motor carrier hired by broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. Mr. Montgomery alleged that the broker negligently selected Caribe Transport despite alleged safety deficiencies reflected in federal safety ratings, including concerns involving driver qualification, hours-of-service compliance, maintenance practices, and crash history.
Brokers have long maintained that negligent hiring claims necessarily impacted brokerage “services” and therefore fell within the FAAAA’s expansive preemption clause. Prior to Montgomery, federal courts were sharply divided. Some jurisdictions, particularly within the Seventh Circuit, held that negligent selection claims against brokers were expressly preempted because they directly targeted a broker’s “services.”[1] Other courts, most notably the Ninth Circuit, concluded that such claims fell within the FAAAA’s safety exception. With the backdrop of this Circuit Court disharmony, the central issue before the Montgomery Court was whether claims alleging negligent hiring by a freight broker of a motor carrier to transport goods falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception.
Focusing on 49 U.S.C. §14501(c)(2)(A)’s monikered “safety exception”, which states that §14501(c)(1)’s preemption provision “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles”, the Court found that the FAAAA does not “restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”[2] Because such negligence claims arise from the selection of motor carriers operating trucks on public highways, the Court concluded that these claims directly concern motor vehicle safety. Importantly, state common law tort duties fall within the purview of a state’s “safety regulatory authority,” and therefore requiring brokers to exercise reasonable care in selecting carriers is fundamentally tied to roadway safety.
This Opinion specifically does not decide whether 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(1) would preempt Mr. Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim. Rather, its holding confines itself to ruling that the safety exception of the FAAAA applies, noting that it was “not obvious why Congress included a safety exception in (c) but not in (b).”[3] The Court resolves this discrepancy by explaining that “it would be even odder to say that the alleged tort—the negligent hiring of an unsafe motor carrier whose truck caused injury—is not an exercise of ‘the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.’ §14501(c)(2)(A). The text of subsection (c)(2)(A) controls.”[4] Leaving it at: “Better to live with the mystery than to rewrite the statute.”[5]
A concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, sheds light onto the Court’s approach, and discloses that the opinion was close. While the concurrence considers the resultant “mystery” between the Act’s disallowance of state tort suits against intrastate transportation and its allowance of the same against interstate transportation a “good point” argued by the brokers (“Why would Congress permit state tort suits against brokers for arranging interstate trips but preempt state tort suits against brokers for arranging intrastate trips? Plaintiff has no good answer to that question.”[6]), the concurrence points to a higher importance of the overall structure of safety regime, and characterizes the statutory and circuit dichotomy as the distinction between pursuing economic deregulation and preserving safety regulation.
Justices Kavanaugh and Alito acknowledge what the industry feared – increased insurance and litigation costs – noting 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.”[7] However, the proximate cause requirement safeguard the Court references will likely be of little help to brokers obtaining favorable insurance premiums or avoiding being dragged into litigation.
This case drew extensive amicus participation from transportation industry organizations, defense groups, and policy advocates. Amici on behalf of freight brokers and industry stakeholders warned that permitting negligent hiring claims would expose brokers to inconsistent state tort standards, increase litigation costs, and disrupt the efficiency of interstate freight operations. Conversely, amici supporting the plaintiff emphasized that broker carrier-selection decisions have direct public safety consequences and argued that traditional state tort remedies serve as an essential accountability mechanism in the commercial transportation industry. The Court’s unanimous ruling ultimately signals that, at least in the context of public highway safety, traditional tort accountability remains fully compatible with the federal regulatory framework governing interstate transportation.
The broader transportation industry implications are substantial. By confirming that negligent hiring claims against freight brokers fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception to preemption, the Court has fundamentally altered litigation landscapes for injurious transportation cases nationwide. The ruling strengthens a plaintiff’s ability to pursue brokers directly, increases the importance of carrier selection processes, and seemingly reshapes how transportation safety procedures can become a central litigation issue. The decision may also accelerate a trend already emerging within the industry: the transition from purely transactional freight matching toward more comprehensive risk-management-based brokerage operations.
[1] Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2036, at *9 (May 14, 2026)(comparing Ye v. Global-Tranz Enterprises, Inc., 74 F. 4th 453, 456 (CA7 2023), and Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, 65 F. 4th 1261, 1264 (CA11 2023), with Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 142 F. 4th 847, 853-858 (CA6 2025), and Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F. 3d 1016, 1020 (CA9 2020).
[2] Montgomery, No. 24-1238, 2026 U.S. LEXIS, at *10 – 12.
[3] Montgomery v. Caribe Transp. II LLC, No. 24-1238, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 2036, at *12. (May 14, 2026).
[4] Id. at *13-14.
[5] Id. at *12-13.
[6] Id. at *16.
[7] Id. at *19.
Attorneys Evan Baker and John Shusted Successfully Obtained Unanimous Defense Verdict for Family Medicine Physician
On Thursday, May 14, 2026, attorneys Evan Baker and Jack Shusted secured a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of a board-certified family medicine physician in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.
The Plaintiff alleged that the family medicine physician deviated from the standard of care by failing to order lung cancer screening for a patient with a long-time smoking history and that the alleged failure caused the patient’s death from lung cancer.
The defense successfully demonstrated that the physician’s care and treatment of the patient met the applicable standard of care at all times. Central to the defense was the existence of two recognized schools of thought within the medical community regarding lung cancer screening guidelines during the relevant period. Specifically, the defense established that the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the governing organization for family medicine practitioners, had not adopted the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung cancer screening recommendation during the time period the patient was under the physician’s care. The defense demonstrated that the physician’s adherence to the AAFP guideline was consistent with treatment supported by a considerable number of respected professionals.
The jury also heard testimony reflecting the physician’s decades of dedicated and attentive service to his community; a testament to the quality of care and genuine compassion for his patients that defined his medical practice throughout his career.
The defense further established through expert oncology testimony that the patient’s cancer was an aggressive, rapidly growing malignancy for which earlier detection was unlikely to have altered the patient’s outcome.
The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defense, finding that the family medicine physician did not deviate from the standard of care.
Attorneys Nikki Mosco and John Shusted Successfully Secure a Defense Verdict for a Urologic Surgeon
On Wednesday, April 22, 2026, Nikki Mosco and Jack Shusted secured a defense verdict on behalf of their client, a board-certified urologic surgeon, following a nearly two-week jury trial in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to timely identify a bowel perforation following a robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.
The defense successfully demonstrated that the surgeon’s postoperative care and treatment of the patient met or exceeded the applicable standard of care. Specifically, the defense demonstrated that the patient had a very atypical presentation of signs and symptoms of bowel perforation as the patient initially presented with signs and symptoms suggestive of a postoperative ileus with no clear signs or symptoms suggestive of a bowel injury until postoperative day 5 at which time a bowel injury was promptly identified.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, finding unanimously that there was no deviation from the standard of care.
Attorneys Jeffrey Laudenbach and Kate Hurley Successfully Secured a Termination of Benefits For Employer
We’re proud to share a recent success from our Workers’ Compensation Defense Team on behalf of our client. Jeff Laudenbach and Kate Hurley were able to secure a Termination of Benefits for the employer on an accepted claim by presenting credible medical testimony and demonstrating clear inconsistencies in the claimant’s reported history and symptoms. This result underscores the value of thorough case development, strategic advocacy, and a strong command of the medical record. We remain committed to delivering effective, evidence‑driven representation for our clients.
Attorneys Matthew J. McColgan and Rebecca Prosper Recently Achieved Their Client’s Dismissal in a Significant but Disputed Truck Accident Through the Use of Dash Camera Footage
We recently defended a client in personal injury lawsuit wherein the dash cam footage was a critical resource in helping our client achieve the exit ramp in what would otherwise have been a tedious litigation. The dash cam footage told the true story of the accident before adverse narratives could take shape. The video evidence clearly demonstrated what happened: the other vehicle caused this accident, not our driver. We used it tactically and early in litigation through informal conferences with opposing counsel without subjecting the client to costly discovery practice. Opposing counsel quickly learned that their serious claims were unsupported as against our client. This approach drove us to our client’s early dismissal, and substantial litigation cost savings.
In today’s accident litigation environment, the difference between a prolonged lawsuit and an early, cost-effective resolution often comes down to how effectively evidence is used from the start. GGM understands that while dash cam footage is one of the most powerful tools a company has, knowing how to leverage it is paramount.
GGM brings persistence to every stage of the litigation process. For our clients, this means less time tied up in litigation and more time to focus on their business, with the added benefit of reduced litigation costs. A legal strategy focused on efficiency and results.
Attorneys Audrey Melli-Mirza and John Shusted Successfully Secure a Defense Verdict for an Orthopaedic Surgeon
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, Audrey Melli-Mirza and Jack Shusted secured a defense verdict on behalf of their client, a board-certified Orthopaedic Surgeon, following a four-day jury trial in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The Plaintiff alleged medical negligence related to a right total knee arthroplasty (TKA), claiming ongoing pain and dissatisfaction with the surgical outcome. The defense successfully demonstrated that the surgeon’s preoperative evaluation, surgical technique, and postoperative care fully met or exceeded the applicable standard of care.
A key element of the defense was showing that the Orthopaedic Surgeon exercised sound clinical judgment at every stage of care—from initial evaluation and consent to surgical execution and postoperative follow-up. Expert testimony and supporting medical records confirmed that the physician carefully reviewed imaging, thoroughly discussed both surgical and non-surgical options with the patient, and delivered treatment consistent with accepted medical standards throughout. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense, finding no deviation from the standard of care.
Premises Liability Defense Win: Trespasser Classification Defeats Negligence Claim via Summary Judgment
Attorneys Matthew J. McColgan and Hugh Daulerio of German Gallagher & Murtaugh’s casualty team secured a complete defense victory for a property owner sued by a delivery driver who alleged injuries from a nighttime staircase accident due to inadequate lighting. Through strategic motion practice, the attorneys successfully argued that the plaintiff was a trespasser with no legal right to be on the property and that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support her claims. The firm demonstrated that their client had not violated any duty of care owed to a trespasser and that no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding liability. The court granted summary judgment, resulting in complete dismissal of all claims and eliminating the client’s exposure to damages while avoiding trial costs and uncertainties.
Attorneys John Shusted and Audrey Melli-Mirza Successfully Secure a Defense Verdict for an Interventional Cardiologist
On Friday, August 1, 2025, Audrey Rose Melli-Mirza and Jack Shusted secured a defense verdict for their client, an interventional cardiologist, following an eight-day trial in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. The Plaintiff had alleged that the cardiologist was negligent in performing a cardiac catheterization on a patient who presented to the hospital’s emergency department with chest pain. According to the Plaintiff, the cardiologist failed to identify and treat severe coronary artery disease (CAD) during coronary angiography, leading to a subsequent myocardial infarction (MI) and the patient’s death six days later. On autopsy, one of the arteries was found to have an 80% stenosis.
Throughout the trial, the defense established that the interventional cardiologist fully adhered to the standard of care. A key element of the defense was that the coronary angiogram—properly obtained and interpreted—showed all coronary arteries clearly in orthogonal projections, supporting the conclusion that epicardial coronary artery disease was not the cause of the patient’s chest pain.
Expert testimony and supporting evidence further confirmed that the cardiologist correctly identified and diagnosed non-critical CAD in the left main artery, and that all treatment decisions were consistent with accepted medical standards.
Ashley N. Baker Named Co-Editor of the ABA’s Truck Accident Litigation, Fourth Edition
We are proud to announce that Ashley Baker, a distinguished attorney in our firm’s transportation litigation practice, has been named Co-Editor of the American Bar Association’s newly released book, Truck Accident Litigation, Fourth Edition. In addition to editing this peer-reviewed publication, she has authored three chapters on: the Hours of Service regulations, the Motor Carrier and the Driver, and Driver Licensing and Responsibilities.
This authoritative volume is a leading national resource for attorneys, insurers, and experts involved in complex trucking cases. The new edition includes expanded content on federal regulations, emerging technologies, and litigation strategy—offering essential guidance for practitioners navigating the evolving landscape of commercial transportation law.
Ashley’s editorial leadership reflects her longstanding dedication to the transportation industry and her deep knowledge of both regulatory compliance and trial advocacy. As Chair of the ABA’s Commercial Transportation Litigation Committee, Ashley brings exceptional insight to this landmark publication.
Please join us in congratulating Ashley on this outstanding achievement and continued contribution to excellence in transportation law.
For more information about the book, visit the link below:
https://www.americanbar.org/products/inv/book/450767220/
Attorneys Matt McColgan and Kevin Ellis Successfully Obtain a Defense Award at an Arbitration in Pennsylvania
The case, an SUV versus a tractor trailer accident, involved claims of negligence and negligent entrustment against both the truck driver and his employer / trucking company. Plaintiff argued that the driver and trucking company negligently caused this accident, which involved a dispute over the manner of the collision.
We were successful in a motion for summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claims against the trucking company, and achieved their dismissal due to the lack of evidence to sustain these claims, leaving only the question of the plaintiff and truck driver’s respective negligence for the fact finder. We then successfully argued at arbitration that the record demonstrated the Plaintiff’s contributory negligence in operating his own vehicle unsafely near the wide turning combination unit serves to bar his claim for recovery. An arbitration panel agreed, finding entirely in favor of the truck driver, resulting in a defense award.
