The U.S. Supreme Court has put Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC on a fast track, granting a briefing schedule that starts with the petitioner’s merits brief due December 1 and the respondents’ brief due January 14. The petitioner, truck-crash victim Shawn Montgomery, is represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement — a signal that both sides are gearing up for a high-stakes fight over whether federal law shields freight brokers from negligent-selection claims.
The schedule clarifies near-term milestones for a case that could reset liability exposure across the brokerage sector. After the initial filings, a reply from Montgomery is expected in mid‑February, a cadence that positions the dispute for spring arguments and a ruling by the end of the term. For brokers and their insurers, that means only weeks — not months — to assess litigation posture, internal controls, and amicus strategies before the record closes.
At issue is whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s preemption clause bars state-law negligent-selection claims against brokers, or whether such claims fall within the statute’s “safety” carve‑out. The Supreme Court agreed this fall to take the case amid conflicting lower‑court results — a patchwork that has left 3PL risk profiles varying by geography and prompted forum‑shopping on catastrophic loss cases. The newly confirmed briefing dates give shippers, carriers, and brokers concrete timing to plan around as they weigh contracting, vetting, and coverage decisions tied to that uncertainty.
Why it matters for trucking: a pro-preemption ruling would narrow brokers’ tort exposure and likely shift more liability back to motor carriers (and their insurers). A ruling that places negligent selection inside the safety exception would do the opposite, compelling brokers to harden selection and monitoring practices beyond FMCSA minimums and to document those steps in a way that stands up in court. Either outcome will ripple through insurance pricing, indemnity provisions, and how quickly loads are matched in tight markets.
What to do now: brokers should tighten carrier onboarding and load tender protocols; confirm that contracts clearly allocate duties and insurance limits; and stress‑test incident response playbooks around data preservation, driver qualification files, telematics access, and rapid counsel engagement. Shippers that rely heavily on 3PLs should review indemnity and additional‑insured provisions and consider how a shift in broker exposure could affect capacity and cost in lanes with elevated nuclear‑verdict risk.
What to watch next: amicus participation from shipper groups, manufacturers and 3PL trade associations is likely to be heavy once merits briefs hit the docket in December and January. If the Court follows its typical calendar, oral argument would land after briefing concludes, with a decision expected by late June — in time to influence how brokers structure contracts and carrier selection for peak shipping later in 2026.
Sources: FreightWaves, Yahoo News, Law360
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
