On Monday, September 29, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to finally step into the long‑running fight over freight-broker negligence, a flashpoint that has split federal appeals courts and left brokers, carriers and shippers navigating different rules depending on where a crash occurs. The petition the justices are considering rises from a Seventh Circuit case involving C.H. Robinson and revisits whether state-law negligent selection claims against brokers are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (FAAAA) “price, route, or service” clause or preserved by its “safety” exception, as FreightWaves reported.
Today’s action comes at the Court’s “long conference,” the closed‑door session that opens the term and sifts thousands of petitions filed over the summer. It is not an argument day; rather, the justices decide which cases to grant or deny, with orders typically posting in the days that follow. In other words, trucking will soon know if broker liability makes the cut for full Supreme Court review this term.
Why it matters for trucking: the outcome dictates operating reality. A grant could deliver a nationwide rule on what diligence a broker owes when selecting a carrier and how far state tort law can reach into brokerage “services.” A denial would entrench the current patchwork—where a negligent-selection claim can be viable in some circuits and barred in others—forcing 3PLs and their shipper customers to price loads, structure contracts and insure risk against shifting legal baselines across lanes.
Near‑term implications if the Court grants review: expect insurers to model two scenarios in parallel (preemption vs. safety‑exception exposure), potentially pushing up E&O and contingent auto premiums for brokers with multistate footprints. Compliance teams should be ready to memorialize carrier‑vetting protocols that are defensible under either outcome—think: documented review of SMS data trends, recent inspection intensity, safety ratings context, and formal escalation paths when signal data conflict. Contracting will matter more, too: shippers are likely to revisit indemnity and additional‑insured provisions to avoid surprises if the safety exception carries the day.
If the justices pass: the “map risk” becomes strategy. Brokers will keep tailoring vetting depth and documentation to the most plaintiff‑friendly venues on their lanes, and shippers may shift freight away from jurisdictions where exposure is highest or demand added protections in broker agreements. Expect more forum contests and more case‑by‑case fights over what counts as a broker “service” versus “safety” conduct—costs that ultimately work their way into rates.
What to watch this week: whether the justices grant review of the Seventh Circuit petition tied to C.H. Robinson, signaling the Court will finally reconcile the split, or issue a denial that leaves the industry with one more year of legal whiplash. FreightWaves says the issue has already prompted a fresh round of filings—evidence that plaintiffs and defendants alike are positioning for whichever rule the Court sets.
Bottom line for 3PLs and shippers: act now as if the Court could go either way. Standardize a tiered vetting program (baseline checks for every carrier; enhanced review for higher‑risk lanes or safety signals), tighten recordkeeping to show contemporaneous decision‑making, and update contracts to align indemnity, additional insured status, and choice‑of‑law with your risk map. Those moves pay off under any Supreme Court outcome—and could be the difference between a dismissed claim and a drawn‑out lawsuit.
Sources: FreightWaves, Supreme Court long‑conference coverage in Washington Examiner, Lisa’s Legal Info
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
