In just the past two weeks, two significant cases have tested the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent pivotal decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, in which the court held that federal regulations do not insulate freight brokers from state-law tort actions.

On July 24, just over two months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Montgomery decision, a Dallas County jury awarded a stunning $604 million verdict against a freight broker, the carrier, and the driver of a truck in connection with a 2021 highway accident that killed three people. The lawsuit, Lipe v. Lupus Superior, alleged negligence on the part of not only the truck driver but also the driver’s employer and the freight broker. The Lipe jury found that the driver of the truck was 45% responsible for the fatal accident, while the trucking company that employed him was 32% responsible, and the freight broker (C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc.) was 23% responsible. C.H. Robinson has announced its intention to appeal the Lipe jury verdict.

Notably, C.H. Robinson’s ultimate exposure far exceeds what its 23% share alone would suggest. Because the Lipe jury also found that the driver was a “borrowed employee” of C.H. Robinson, the broker was held vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence—a finding that pushed its share of the award to roughly $400 million, or nearly two-thirds of the total verdict. It was thus the vicarious-liability finding, rather than the negligent-selection theory that Montgomery addressed, that produced the headline number. That distinction is the key practical lesson of the case: Montgomery cleared the path to a jury, but a broker’s degree of operational control over the transportation is what determines how far liability ultimately travels.

A few days later, on Aug. 4, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in Crane v. Penske Transportation Management (formerly Crane v. Liberty Lane), reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling against a plaintiff’s claim of negligent hiring on the part of the freight broker in connection with a fatal December 2018 highway accident in Texas. The case involved a truck operated by OK Transport, which was carrying a load that had been brokered through a complex logistics web involving multiple entities: Penske Logistics, through its brokerage affiliate, Penske Transportation Management, which contracted with Liberty Lane, which in turn contracted with its affiliate, Liberty Commercial, which finally passed the load to OK Transport.

The district court had held that the freight broker could not be liable under the “statutory employer” doctrine and that the plaintiff’s lawsuit against the freight carrier was preempted by federal law. But on appeal, the Fifth Circuit panel, in reliance on Montgomery, reversed, finding that Penske Logistics, as the ultimate broker, was vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.

Lipe and Crane mark major tests of the Montgomery decision, which resolved a circuit court split and dramatically expanded the landscape in which freight brokers must assess their liability exposure. Now, freight brokers must evaluate their risk exposure not only under existing federal laws and regulations but also under differing state law negligence standards. They also now face the unpredictability of jury verdicts in those state tort law actions.

Taken together, these cases sharpen a distinction that freight brokers cannot afford to overlook. Negligent selection asks whether the broker exercised reasonable care in choosing the carrier—a question of vetting, available safety data, and documentation, and one that is limited by the broker’s own percentage of fault. Vicarious liability asks something else entirely: whether the broker exercised enough control that the law treats the carrier or its driver as the broker’s agent. That theory is not capped by an apportionment percentage, and, as Lipe demonstrates, it is where the most significant exposure can lie.

For brokers, several practical steps follow. Carrier vetting should be a documented, repeatable process, with authority, insurance, and available safety data screened and preserved at the moment of selection; a “satisfactory” federal safety rating is not a safe harbor. Equally important is the line between coordinating freight and controlling it—dispatching, real-time tracking, dictating routes or timing, and pressing a driver who has reported being unfit are the kinds of facts that can convert a broker into a “borrowed employer.” Robust indemnification, additional-insured status, and verified insurance limits remain essential—not because they prevent suit, but because they determine who ultimately pays. Brokers should also preserve the defenses Montgomery left open, including the court’s express reservation of whether preemption still bars claims arising from purely intrastate shipments.

For shippers, this line of authority is largely favorable, shifting diligence and financial responsibility onto the intermediaries and carriers they engage and rewarding those who select brokers with disciplined carrier-vetting practices.

Both decisions remain early in their appellate lives—the Lipe judgment has not yet been entered, and Crane returns to the district court on remand—so the last word is far from written. We will continue to monitor these cases, and the next wave of litigation testing Montgomery’s reach, and will report on material developments as they occur.

Click here to read the full article written by Frank Bayyari, Sonja Rice, and Evan Cernea and published in The Legal Intelligencer. Login may be required.

This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The reader should consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader’s specific circumstances.

Reprinted with permission from the September 14, 2026 edition of The Legal Intelligencer © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC, trading as Centellic. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.