The Supreme Court Just Made Brokers Liable for the Carriers They Choose. Here's What It Means for Moving Consumers.

On May 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (No. 24-1238) unanimously. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion. The holding: a claim that one company negligently hired another to transport goods is not preempted by federal law. States retain authority to regulate safety 'with respect to motor vehicles,' and requiring a broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier falls within that authority.

The ruling removed the legal shield that transportation brokers had used for decades to avoid liability for the carriers they select. Less than three months later, a Dallas jury returned a $604 million verdict against C.H. Robinson, one of the largest freight brokers in the country, for negligently hiring a carrier whose driver caused a fatal crash.

The freight industry is scrambling. Brokers are tightening carrier vetting, demanding higher insurance, and adding indemnification clauses to contracts. But the household goods sector, where broker fraud is most concentrated and consumer harm most acute, has seen no equivalent response.

The case arose from a 2021 crash on Interstate 20 in Mississippi. Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when his tractor trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, who was hauling plastic pots for Caribe Transport II. C.H. Robinson, a transportation broker, had coordinated the shipment.

Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson, alleging that the broker knew or should have known that Caribe Transport's safety record made it reasonably likely to cause harm. C.H. Robinson argued that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), which preempts state laws related to prices, routes, and services of the trucking industry, barred the claim.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The FAAAA contains a safety exception: its preemption provision 'shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.' The Court held that negligent-hiring claims concern motor vehicles because they require the broker to exercise ordinary care in selecting carriers, which directly relates to the vehicles those carriers operate.

The decision was unanimous. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurrence joined by Justice Alito.

Montgomery involved a safety claim: physical injury from a crash. But the legal principle applies with equal force to household goods broker fraud.

Consider what the ruling means in practice. A broker has a duty of 'ordinary care' in selecting a carrier. If the broker selects a carrier that it knew or should have known was unreliable, and the consumer is harmed as a result, the broker can be held liable.

Now consider the brokers in Trunk's NCCDB database:

Safe Ship Moving Services (404 complaints across two DOT numbers operated by the same owner, #1 nationally) dispatched a Navy officer's PCS move to Ver Vanlines LLC, a carrier that was not incorporated when FMCSA licensed it. Ver's authority was revoked within six months. The goods have been missing for over a year. Safe Ship's defense: 'We were just the broker.'

Menards Moving & Storage (290 complaints, accelerating at 156 in the first half of 2026) dispatched consumer moves to Handle With Care Moving (147 complaints, authority later revoked), which inflated volume estimates by 72% and held goods hostage.

In both cases, the broker selected a carrier with either no track record (Ver Vanlines, weeks old) or an extensive complaint history (Handle With Care, 147 complaints). Under Montgomery, the question is whether the broker exercised ordinary care in making that selection. A broker that dispatches to a carrier with no incorporation history, or to a carrier with 147 complaints, has not exercised ordinary care by any reasonable standard.

The 'we were just the broker' defense that has protected HHG brokers for years is no longer legally viable after Montgomery. The question is who will bring the claims.

Freight brokers are already changing behavior after Montgomery and the $604 million verdict. HHG brokers are not. The reasons are structural.

First, the damages in HHG fraud cases are smaller. A household goods claim might involve $50,000 to $100,000 in property loss. A freight crash claim involves wrongful death. Plaintiffs' attorneys pursue cases where damages justify the litigation cost. A $604 million verdict attracts attention. A $50,000 property loss does not.

Second, HHG consumers are dispersed. Each victim has an individual claim. There is no class of plaintiffs large enough to justify class action economics, and each transaction involves different carriers, different routes, and different fact patterns.

Third, FMCSA does not enforce. Broker enforcement cases in FY 2025 and FY 2026: zero. The agency that could hold brokers accountable through administrative action has chosen not to. Private litigation is the only remaining path, and private litigation is expensive relative to the damages.

Fourth, federal preemption has historically been used as a defense. Montgomery removes that defense for safety-related claims, but HHG claims often involve property loss rather than physical injury. A legal professional working on HHG fraud cases has argued that broker liability for negligent carrier selection can be pursued under FMCSA's own rules requiring brokers to be 'fit, willing, and able' to perform brokerage services. This avoids the preemption question entirely because it applies existing federal law to a federal remedy under Section 14704.

This theory has not yet been tested at scale. But the legal framework now exists.

A September 2024 ruling sharpens the picture. In Peterfai v. USA Logistics (S.D. Cal., 23-cv-1695-WQH-KSC), the court confirmed that Carmack does NOT preempt state law claims against brokers. State fraud, negligence, and consumer protection claims survived against Rado Express Logistics, the broker that arranged the move. But the court also held that brokers do not owe fiduciary duties to consumers, narrowing the available theories. And the consumer's RICO claims failed because the complaint lumped all defendants together instead of identifying each entity's specific role in the scheme. The result: brokers can be sued under state law, but consumers must plead with precision. General allegations that 'the defendants conspired' are not enough. Each entity's acts must be identified separately.

The Montgomery framework is now generating active litigation. FreightWaves reported in September 2026 that at least two more broker liability cases are proceeding in federal court.

In Arizona, J.B. Hunt Transport Services is a defendant for brokering a load to Borderlands Transport, a carrier with a history of safety assessment alerts, frequent crashes, and inspection violations including for improper lane changes and inability to speak English. The crash killed and injured members of one family. J.B. Hunt sought summary judgment; the court has not yet ruled. Plaintiffs allege J.B. Hunt held itself out as the carrier to the shipper.

In Nevada, Hardy v. Singh involves illegal double-brokering. AONE Brokerage dispatched to Lucky Transport, which re-brokered to GRK Transport, an unauthorized carrier driven by its owner. One fatality, one injury. Judge Anne Traum denied summary judgment in August 2026, finding factual disputes. The court noted that 'illegal double brokering can put more high-risk drivers on the road' and found evidence that AONE 'breached their duty of care when they continued to do business with Lucky even though they knew that Lucky was subcontracting their loads.'

J.B. Hunt uses Highway, a third-party verification platform, for carrier vetting. It is one of the most sophisticated vetting operations in the freight industry. If J.B. Hunt faces negligent selection liability despite structured vetting, the exposure for HHG brokers with no vetting infrastructure is incalculable. Safe Ship's published carrier list contains 100 carriers with revoked or inactive authority. Menards dispatched to Handle With Care, revoked three times. Neither has been sued on a Montgomery theory. When that lawsuit comes, the evidence will already be public.

JBA Telematics published a carrier-focused analysis in August 2026 documenting how Montgomery is reshaping the freight broker market. The changes are structural, not theoretical.

Insurance requirements are rising. Brokers that accepted $1 million minimums now require more. Contracts are shifting risk downstream through broad-form indemnification clauses that would make carriers responsible for the broker's own negligence (46 states have anti-indemnification statutes limiting this). Carrier selection is moving from price to safety credentials: CSA scores, crash history, onboard cameras, and ongoing monitoring.

The joint-and-several-liability exposure is particularly significant. In most states, a broker found even partially at fault can be liable for the entire judgment if the carrier cannot pay its share. A $1 million carrier policy on an $8 million claim leaves a $7 million gap. Before Montgomery, that gap was the plaintiff's problem. Now the broker's balance sheet fills it.

95% of trucking companies carry no FMCSA safety rating. JBA notes that brokers assigning freight to unrated carriers 'because the price was right' are handing plaintiffs' counsel their next exhibit.

The HHG parallel is stark. HHG brokers like Safe Ship dispatch to 1-truck operators with zero safety ratings, zero inspection histories, and rental trucks. Under Montgomery, that is negligent selection on its face. The freight market is already adjusting: C.H. Robinson tightened carrier standards, J.B. Hunt is growing its dedicated fleet, and brokers are consolidating around known capacity. HHG brokers have made none of these adjustments. Safe Ship's carrier list still contains 100 carriers with revoked authority. Menards still dispatches to chameleon carriers. The freight market's post-Montgomery correction has not reached household goods.

Montgomery does not automatically protect household goods consumers. It creates a legal framework that must be applied through litigation, and litigation requires resources most individual consumers do not have.

What consumers can do:

1. Document the broker relationship. Keep all communications showing that the broker selected the carrier. When the carrier arrives, note whether it is the company you hired. Take photos of the truck, including the company name (or absence of one) and license plate.

2. If the carrier is different from the company you booked with, that means you hired a broker. Ask for the broker's carrier list (required by 49 CFR 371.109). Many brokers will not provide it. Document the refusal.

3. Before hiring, check the broker on Trunk's NCCDB dashboard (trunk.lorea.ai/dashboard/nccdb). If the broker has more than 50 complaints, or if it dispatches to carriers with high per-truck complaint rates, rental truck fleets, or recent authority grants, those are warning signs.

4. If you are harmed, file complaints with FMCSA (even though enforcement is minimal, the complaint creates a record), your state attorney general, and the BBB. Consider whether the damages justify consulting an attorney about a negligent-selection claim under Montgomery.

5. Report your experience to Trunk at trunk.lorea.ai/report-mover. Consumer reports build the data that makes pattern detection possible.