Note: This post is an educational industry update about freight croker carrier selection. And does not constitute legal advice. For questions about your organization’s specific obligations, consult qualified legal counsel.
What the Supreme Court Changed
Freight broker carrier selection has always carried legal weight. But on May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC that certain state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers can move forward when they involve highway safety.
The Court held that these safety-related claims are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). In practice, this means brokers can no longer rely on federal preemption as an early procedural shield in this type of case.
For years, many carrier-selection claims against brokers were dismissed before courts reviewed the broker’s actual process. This ruling changes that for certain safety-related claims.
Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, added an important clarification: this does not mean brokers are automatically liable whenever a truck is involved in an accident. Plaintiffs still have to prove that the broker failed to exercise reasonable care and that the failure directly caused the harm. Carriers and drivers remain primarily responsible for what happens on the road.
Safety-related claims against brokers were often dismissed early under federal preemption, meaning the freight broker carrier selection process rarely surfaced in court.
Those claims can now proceed in state court, making the freight broker carrier selection part of the legal record.
The carrier involved reportedly had a conditional FMCSA safety rating and documented deficiencies related to driver qualifications, hours-of-service compliance, and crash history. Under this ruling, those details — and whether they were reviewed before tendering the load — can now become part of the legal analysis.
The Freight Broker Carrier Selection Standard
The legal standard has always been ordinary reasonable care — the same one applied to most businesses that hire third parties. Montgomery does not create a new carrier-selection standard from scratch. It changes whether certain safety-related claims can reach the stage where a broker’s process is actually examined. That makes the quality and documentation of freight broker carrier selection decisions more consequential than before.
A court will ask: did the broker review available data, keep a clear record of what it found, and make the kind of decision a reasonably careful party would make? Public tools like the FMCSA’s SAFER system are likely to become part of the baseline record courts and claimants look for.
A thorough freight broker carrier selection process covers several distinct areas:
- ✓Active FMCSA operating authorityConfirmed at time of tender, not just at onboarding. Authority can be suspended or revoked between loads.
- ✓Safety data reviewBASIC scores, crash rates, out-of-service history, and official safety rating status from FMCSA records.
- ✓Insurance verificationCoverage type, limits, expiration dates, and named insured confirmed against the specific load being moved.
- ✓Equipment traceabilityVIN and equipment confirmed to close the gap that cargo fraud operations most commonly exploit.
- ✓Driver and HOS complianceDriver and dispatcher validated; hours-of-service reviewed where applicable to the movement.
- ✓Fraud signal monitoringOwnership changes, unusual geographic patterns, double-brokering indicators, and high-value cargo risk factors.
The point is not simply to collect data. The point is to show that the decision was reasonable based on what was available at the time.
What was reviewed, when it was reviewed, and what the data showed may become the broker’s strongest record. A carrier selection decision without documentation may be harder to defend, even when the load was carefully vetted. If a concern was noted and the load was tendered anyway, that reasoning needs to be on file.
When Carrier Vetting Is Someone’s Full-Time Job
There is a meaningful difference between a transportation partner who verifies carriers as part of a broader job, and one that has a dedicated compliance function whose only responsibility is running this process, consistently, on every load. That distinction rarely shows up in a rate quote. It shows up when something goes wrong.
The exposure Montgomery highlights on the safety side has a direct parallel in cargo theft. According to Verisk CargoNet’s 2025 analysis, the average reported cargo-theft loss reached $273,990 per incident, up 36% year over year. ATRI research from October 2025 found nearly three-quarters of stolen freight is never recovered. The financial exposure is real, and it is disproportionately concentrated in loads where vetting was skipped or rushed.
A customer recently asked us to quote an FTL move for a high-value shipment. We lined up a carrier that had cleared our full verification process. The customer ultimately moved the load through another provider at a lower rate.
Two days later, they came back to us. The cargo had been stolen. The load had been assigned to a carrier whose contact information was already flagged in industry databases as tied to identity-spoofing freight fraud. The declared value at booking was roughly $80,000. The actual value of the shipment was closer to $450,000.
After the theft, the customer returned to GLT. Our compliance team guided them through the claims process and helped them connect with the right coverage resources to move forward. That type of fraud signal is exactly what a structured verification process is meant to catch before a load is tendered.
The pattern in this case is not unique. Any rate savings measured against a six-figure theft exposure is an asymmetric trade, and the value of a documented vetting process is rarely visible until the day it is needed.
Questions Worth Asking Any Transportation Partner
Most freight forwarders and logistics teams default to evaluating inland transportation partners on rate and transit time. Those are legitimate criteria. But after Montgomery, freight broker carrier selection practices face greater scrutiny, and the cargo theft environment adds new questions to consider before moving a load—especially high-value freight.
A partner with a real carrier qualification process should answer these without hesitation:
- ✓How do you confirm FMCSA authority is active at the time of tender?Not just when the carrier was first approved, but before each individual load.
- ✓How do you verify current insurance coverage for this specific shipment?Not just a certificate on file from a prior date.
- ✓What happens if a carrier has a conditional or unsatisfactory safety rating?Is there a documented decision path, or is it handled case by case?
- ✓Is your qualification process documented in a way that creates a clear record?The record is what matters if a claim or dispute ever comes up.
- ✓Does full verification stay in place when a load needs to move quickly?Urgency is one of the most common conditions under which fraud gets through.
For freight forwarders, international consolidators, and shippers managing transportation across the U.S., Mexico, or Canada, partnering with a 3PL that has a dedicated compliance function means Freight Broker Carrier Selection is not treated as an extra step — it is part of the operating model. GLT Logistics works with logistics teams across North America on this basis.
Frequently Asked Questions
Work With a Partner That Takes Carrier Selection Seriously
For GLT, carrier selection has never been just a checklist. It is part of how we protect our customers, their freight, and the business behind every shipment.
No commitment. Just a real conversation about your freight.
