Over the past several years, the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) has been a focal point in broker liability cases within the trucking industry. Its preemption clause has sparked significant legal debate, especially as courts attempt to reconcile state law claims with federal regulatory uniformity. In recent years, lawsuits against freight brokers alleging negligence in hiring unsafe motor carriers have highlighted a key question: are such claims preempted by the FAAAA?
This article examines the current state of federal case law on FAAAA preemption in broker liability cases, including pivotal decisions from the 9th and 7th Circuits and the Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in Total Quality Logistics (TQL).
Background: FAAAA Preemption
Congress enacted the FAAAA to eliminate burdensome state regulations that interfered with the free flow of interstate commerce. Its preemption clause prohibits states from enacting or enforcing laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder.” The intent was to create a uniform regulatory framework, shielding carriers and brokers from inconsistent state laws.
However, this broad language has sparked disputes over its scope, particularly in cases where state-law negligence claims against property brokers intersect with public safety concerns. Courts are tasked with determining whether such claims are sufficiently “related to” a broker’s services to warrant preemption.
Broker Liability: The Legal Landscape
Freight brokers play a crucial role in the supply chain, acting as intermediaries between shippers and motor carriers. Increasingly, brokers (and even shippers to a lesser extent) face negligence lawsuits when accidents involve carriers they hire, with plaintiffs alleging failure to properly vet the carrier’s safety record.
These claims present a dilemma:
Public safety vs. uniformity: Plaintiffs argue that negligence claims promote safety by incentivizing brokers to select safe carriers.
Federal preemption: Brokers counter that such claims interfere with federally mandated uniformity in pricing, routes, and services.
This tension has led to a growing number of lawsuits, with divergent outcomes across jurisdictions.
Recent Case Law Developments
A. 9th Circuit: Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc. (2020)
The 9th Circuit addressed broker liability in Miller v. C.H. Robinson. The case involved a fatal accident caused by a carrier hired by C.H. Robinson. The plaintiff alleged the broker was negligent in selecting the carrier.
The court held that the FAAAA did not preempt the plaintiff’s negligence claim, reasoning that it fell within the “safety exception” to preemption. This exception, derived from 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A), allows states to regulate motor carrier safety. The court concluded that the claim was not “related to” the broker’s core services but rather to public safety concerns.
B. 7th Circuit: Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises Inc. (2023)
In Ye v. GlobalTranz, the 7th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. The case arose from a negligence claim against GlobalTranz, a broker accused of hiring an unsafe motor carrier. The court found that the FAAAA preempted the claim, holding that negligence claims inherently relate to a broker’s “services” under the preemption clause. Unlike the 9th Circuit, the 7th Circuit rejected the application of the safety exception, reasoning that it pertains to motor carriers, not brokers.
C. 7th Circuit: Montgomery v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc. (2025)
In Montgomery, the 7th Circuit reaffirmed its stance on FAAAA preemption in broker liability cases. The plaintiff, Shawn Montgomery, was severely injured when his truck was hit by a tractor-trailer operated by a carrier hired by C.H. Robinson. Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson was negligent in selecting the carrier and sought to hold the broker vicariously liable for the driver's actions. Montgomery also pursued a slightly different argument, claiming the carrier and its driver were acting as C.H. Robinson's agent rather than contractors.
The court upheld the lower court's decision dismissing Montgomery's claims, citing its earlier decision in Ye v. GlobalTranz. The court also determined that the carrier and its driver were independent contractors, not agents of C.H. Robinson, thereby rejecting the vicarious liability claim.
SCOTUS and the TQL Case
The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in a case involving Total Quality Logistics (TQL), leaving unresolved the circuit split on FAAAA preemption. This is the latest it the Supreme Court's refusals to take up this issue.
The TQL case stemmed from a fatal crash involving a carrier hired by TQL, with plaintiffs alleging negligent broker practices. Lower courts issued conflicting rulings, reflecting the broader inconsistency in how courts interpret FAAAA preemption. By declining to hear the case, SCOTUS allowed the circuit split to persist, creating significant uncertainty for brokers and shippers.
The denial of certiorari underscores the need for judicial or legislative clarification. Without it, brokers face inconsistent liability standards depending on jurisdiction, complicating their compliance efforts.
Key Takeaways for Brokers and Carriers
The current legal landscape presents significant challenges for freight brokers navigating FAAAA preemption and negligence claims:
Mitigating Liability Risks
Brokers should conduct thorough due diligence in vetting motor carriers, including reviewing safety records and compliance history to mitigate their exposure.
Contractual provisions that define the independent contractor relationship and limit liability may help manage risk.
Impact of Circuit Splits
The divide between the 9th and 7th Circuits creates uncertainty, as brokers may face liability in some jurisdictions but not others.
Multi-jurisdictional operations require heightened
Legislative or Judicial Action Needed
Congress or SCOTUS must address the circuit split to provide consistent guidance.
A resolution would ensure clarity for brokers while balancing public safety concerns.
Conclusion
The ongoing debate over FAAAA preemption in broker liability cases highlights a critical intersection of public safety and federal regulatory uniformity. Recent decisions from the 9th and 7th Circuits, coupled with SCOTUS’s denial of certiorari in the TQL case, reveal a fractured legal landscape with significant implications for the trucking industry.
As lawsuits against brokers continue to rise, the lack of a unified standard leaves stakeholders grappling with uncertainty. Legislative or judicial intervention is essential to resolve these tensions and create a stable framework that promotes both safety and efficiency in interstate commerce.
For assistance with these types of legal issues, feel free to contact one of our transportation attorneys. Childress Law, is dedicated to serving the unique needs of the transportation industry. Co-owned by attorneys Jerad Childress and Brandon Wiseman, the firm provides specialized legal services in areas such as DOT safety and compliance, corporate structuring, transportation due diligence, and commercial agreements. With a client-centered approach, Childress Law delivers practical, high-quality legal solutions tailored to the dynamic transportation landscape. Childress Law prides itself on being a trusted partner for sophisticated transportation companies across the United States. Our mission is to help clients navigate the complexities of transportation law, ensuring compliance, minimizing risk, and supporting growth.