Negligent Hiring Tort not Preempted by Federal Statute
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/faa-authorization-act-does-preempt-all-state-tort-zalma-esq-cfe-6jkvc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al., 608 U.S.__ No. 24-1238, United States Supreme Court (May 14, 2026) Shawn Montgomery suffered severe and permanent injuries when his tractor trailer was struck by a truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena while Varela-Mojena was transporting plastic pots through Illinois for Caribe Transport II, LLC. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., acting as a transportation broker, had arranged the shipment.
Montgomery sued the driver, the motor carrier, the broker, and related entities, alleging that C.H. Robinson negligently hired Varela-Mojena and Caribe Transport despite safety information that allegedly showed Caribe Transport posed an unreasonable risk of crashes and injury.
LAW
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts state laws having the force and effect of law that are related to a price, route, or service of a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property. The Act also contains a safety exception providing that the preemption provision shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.
State common-law duties and standards of care can constitute safety regulatory authority, and negligent-hiring doctrine imposes a duty of reasonable care when selecting a contractor for work that creates a risk of physical harm.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court assumed for purposes of analysis that Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim might otherwise fall within the FAAAA’s express preemption clause but held that the safety exception saves the claim. The Court reasoned that the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” should be given its ordinary meaning, including claims that concern or regard vehicles used in transportation.
Because Montgomery’s claim challenged C.H. Robinson’s selection of a carrier whose trucks would transport the goods, and because the alleged negligence related to motor-vehicle safety risks, the claim concerned motor vehicles within the meaning of the safety exception.
ANALYSIS
The Federal Government began regulating the trucking industry in 1935. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) initially regulated rates and services of motor carriers “‘in the public interest.'” But the ICC’s interventions “inhibit[ed] market entry [and] carrier growth,” creating “some operating inefficiencies and some anticompetitive pricing.” Its regulation also stifled brokers’ development. Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 to deregulate aspects of the industry. The Motor Carrier Act eased entry requirements, reduced collective rate making, and encouraged greater flexibility in pricing.
SCOTUS rejected C.H. Robinson’s arguments that Montgomery’s interpretation would swallow the preemption rule, create surplusage, or improperly extend the exception to brokers. The safety exception does not save every claim related to transportation services; it saves only claims involving state safety regulation concerning motor vehicles. Nor did the Court view the absence of a safety exception in the Act’s intrastate-broker provision as sufficient reason to narrow the text of subsection 14501(c)(2)(A).
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence emphasized that the case was close, noting competing statutory-context arguments, but concluded that Congress likely did not use indirect language in an economic-deregulation statute to eliminate state tort remedies against brokers who negligently select unsafe motor carriers.
CONCLUSIONS
The holding is that state negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers are not barred by the FAAAA when they fall within the Act’s safety exception because they concern motor-vehicle safety.
The decision preserves state tort authority over broker conduct connected to the selection of unsafe motor carriers while leaving ordinary economic regulation of broker prices, routes, and services subject to federal preemption.
ZALMA OPINION
Although federal Regulations try to control everything they are directed at, when the language of the statute seemed clear SCOTUS found that the Act it was asked to rule upon also contains a safety exception providing that the preemption provision shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles. Shawn Montgomery sued for the negligent hiring of the driver who negligently caused his injury and SCOTUS found that the statute did not preempt the states right to allow the negligent hiring claim brought by Shawn Montgomery for his injuries.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Million Dollar Roundup Verdict Reversed by SCOTUS
FIFRA Preempts the State-Law Failure-to-Warn Claim
Post number 5381
Posted on June 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Missouri, Eastern District, No. 24–1068, argued April 27, 2026, decided June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court reversed a $1 million judgment found by a Missouri state court.
Facts
John Durnell sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that his long-term use of Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto should have warned users of cancer risks. A jury awarded Durnell more than $1 million on a failure-to-warn theory, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether FIFRA preempts the state-law failure-to-warn claim.
Monsanto manufactures and distributes Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. The Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and has concluded that it is not likely to cause cancer; ...
The Right to Self-Defense is not Given Up by Employment
Colorado Employer Cannot Punish Employee for Exercising Right of Self Defense
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmbSG-Nq and at https://zalma.com/blog, #insurancebooks, #insurance books, #amazon.
Post number 5380
In Mary Ann Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46, No. 25SA134, Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc (June 15, 2026) Moreno, a seventy-two-year-old Circle K employee, was working when an armed robber approached the register with hunting knives, demanded cigarettes for free, and moved behind the counter toward her.
Moreno told him not to come behind the counter and extended her arms, which she characterized as an instinctive act of self-defense. The robber left with cigarettes and was later arrested for armed robbery. Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, and Moreno sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The District court certified a question that only asked the Supreme ...
The Right to Self-Defense is not Given Up by Employment
Colorado Employer Cannot Punish Employee for Exercising Right of Self Defense
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmbSG-Nq and at https://zalma.com/blog, #insurancebooks, #insurance books, #amazon.
Post number 5380
In Mary Ann Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46, No. 25SA134, Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc (June 15, 2026) Moreno, a seventy-two-year-old Circle K employee, was working when an armed robber approached the register with hunting knives, demanded cigarettes for free, and moved behind the counter toward her.
Moreno told him not to come behind the counter and extended her arms, which she characterized as an instinctive act of self-defense. The robber left with cigarettes and was later arrested for armed robbery. Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, and Moreno sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The District court certified a question that only asked the Supreme ...
