Justices Challenge C.H. Robinson’s Bid to Block Broker Liability Under F4A Safety Exception
The Supreme Court examined whether the F4A safety exception permits state tort claims against brokers for 80,000-pound truck incidents in Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II. Justices Kagan and Jackson questioned C.H. Robinson’s counsel on applying sections B and C of the 1994 statute, heightening the company’s litigation risk.
1. Broker Liability Dispute
The dispute stems from a 2017 crash on an Illinois road that injured truck driver Shawn Montgomery after Caribe Transport’s vehicle was engaged through C.H. Robinson’s brokerage services. The Fourth Circuit and a federal district court previously sided with C.H. Robinson under F4A preemption, but the Ninth Circuit held the safety exception could apply to brokers, prompting Supreme Court review.
2. Supreme Court Deliberations
On March 4, counsel Theodore Boutrous argued C.H. Robinson should not face state tort claims “with respect to motor vehicles,” while Justices Kagan and Jackson questioned whether brokers truly remain detached from safety liability in hauling operations. Justices queried how sections B and C interrelate and whether negligence issues belong to tort suits regardless of broker status.
3. Statutory Provisions in Tension
The Federal Aviation Authorization Act’s section C preemption clause bars state actions that affect “price, route or service” of motor carriers, yet includes a safety exception for “motor vehicles.” Section B governs intrastate broker and freight forwarder regulation without any safety carve-out, creating ambiguity over Congress’s intent toward broker liability.
4. Implications for C.H. Robinson
A ruling that the safety exception extends to brokers could expose C.H. Robinson to expanded state tort suits, potentially raising legal costs, insurance premiums and operational risk. Investors will watch for how the Court resolves the alignment of F4A provisions and the scope of broker responsibilities in transportation safety.