The Caribe Decision Changes the Risk Equation for Everyone in the Supply Chain

For years, many shippers have viewed the freight broker as the party standing between them and the trucking company.

The shipper tenders the load.

The broker finds the truck.

The carrier moves the freight.

And if something goes wrong, the assumption has often been that the carrier—and perhaps the broker—will deal with the consequences.

That assumption deserves a fresh look.

On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLCthat could significantly change how transportation companies think about carrier selection and safety responsibility. The Court held that federal law does not preempt a state-law negligent-hiring claim against a freight broker. In plain English, a broker can potentially be sued for negligently selecting an unsafe motor carrier.

The Court did not find the broker liable. It did not establish that every carrier-selection decision creates liability. And importantly for shippers, it did not rule that shippers are automatically responsible for the actions of carriers selected by their brokers.

But it changed the landscape.

And shippers should pay attention.

Why Should a Shipper Care?

Because the broker is selecting the trucking company that will put a vehicle on the highway carrying the shipper’s freight.

That creates an obvious question:

If the broker can be held responsible for negligently selecting a carrier, what happens when the shipper is the party directing the broker—or even selecting the carrier itself?

That question was not decided by Montgomery v. Caribe. But it is precisely the kind of question transportation executives should be asking their attorneys, insurers and risk managers now.

The Supreme Court case arose from a serious 2017 highway accident in Illinois. Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when his stopped tractor-trailer was struck by a truck operated by Caribe Transport II. C.H. Robinson had arranged the shipment. Montgomery alleged that Robinson negligently hired Caribe despite safety concerns involving the carrier.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was not whether Robinson actually acted negligently.

The issue was whether the claim could even proceed under state law.

The Court said yes.

That distinction is critical.

The Broker Is No Longer Just an Intermediary

Historically, brokers have generally argued that they are intermediaries: they don’t own the truck, employ the driver or physically transport the freight.

That remains true.

But Montgomery makes clear that a broker’s role in selecting and arranging transportation can itself create a basis for a state-law negligence claim.

The decision therefore raises the importance of the broker’s carrier-selection process.

Did the broker check the carrier’s safety record?

Did it verify operating authority and insurance?

Were there serious regulatory violations?

Was the carrier’s safety history deteriorating?

Did the broker know about prior crashes or other red flags?

And perhaps most importantly:

Was the broker’s selection process documented?

Those questions are likely to become much more important in litigation. Legal observers expect claims that might previously have been dismissed early in the process to survive longer and proceed into discovery, increasing litigation costs and potentially settlement exposure.

Now Put Yourself in the Shipper’s Chair

Here’s where this gets interesting.

Suppose a shipper has a long-standing relationship with a broker.

The shipper says, “I need a truck from Richmond to Chicago tomorrow.”

The broker finds a carrier.

The carrier has the proper authority and insurance, but a questionable safety history.

The load moves.

There is an accident.

The injured party sues the carrier and broker.

Now imagine that discovery reveals the shipper specifically instructed the broker to use that carrier because the carrier offered the lowest price.

Or the shipper maintained a list of “preferred carriers” and required the broker to use one of them.

Or the shipper negotiated directly with the carrier and merely used the broker to handle paperwork.

Suddenly, the question becomes much more complicated.

Who actually made the carrier-selection decision?

Again, Montgomery did not answer that question.

But it gives plaintiffs an additional avenue for pursuing the parties involved in arranging transportation.

That means shippers should understand exactly what role their broker is playing.

Don’t Confuse a Broker With a Carrier

There is another important issue.

The transportation industry’s legal distinctions matter.

A true broker arranges transportation. A motor carrier actually provides transportation.

But sometimes the facts surrounding a transaction can blur that distinction.

Who contracted with the shipper?

Whose name appeared on the rate confirmation?

Who accepted responsibility for the shipment?

Who selected the carrier?

Who controlled the transportation?

Who communicated with the carrier?

Who billed the shipper?

These aren’t merely administrative questions.

They can become important evidence if something goes wrong.

Shippers should know what their transportation agreements actually say—not simply what everyone informally calls the company.

What Should Shippers Do Now?

First, review your broker agreements.

Understand exactly what the broker represents it will do regarding carrier selection, safety screening, insurance verification and compliance.

Second, understand your own role in carrier selection.

If your company provides a list of carriers that a broker must use, document why those carriers are approved and how they are periodically reviewed.

Third, don’t assume a carrier’s federal authority means the carrier is automatically a good risk.

Federal registration and operating authority are important, but they are not the same thing as a comprehensive safety evaluation.

Fourth, document exceptions.

If a carrier doesn’t meet your normal standards but is used anyway because of an emergency, capacity shortage or customer requirement, document who made that decision and why.

Finally, talk to your insurance and legal professionals.

The question isn’t simply whether you have cargo insurance or general liability insurance.

The bigger question is:

Where does liability sit if something goes badly wrong?

The Bigger Lesson

The Caribe decision is not a declaration that shippers are suddenly liable for every accident involving a truck carrying their freight.

It is much more subtle—and potentially more important.

It reinforces the idea that carrier selection itself can create legal exposure.

That means the old mentality of “We gave it to the broker; it’s their problem” may no longer be a comfortable risk-management strategy.

Shippers should be asking:

Who selected the carrier?

What did they know about that carrier?

What did they reasonably know—or should they have known?

And can we prove that we exercised reasonable care?

Those are very different questions from simply asking whether the carrier had a valid DOT number and insurance certificate.

The best response to Montgomery v. Caribe isn’t panic.

It is discipline.

Know who is selecting your carriers. Know how they are being vetted. Know what your contracts say. Know who has responsibility for what.

Because in the post-Caribe world, the most important question may no longer be simply:

“Who hauled the load?”

It may be:

“Who made the decision to put that truck on the road?”