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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
