Post Content
Scottsdale, AZ–The Transportation Intermediaries Association annual Capital Ideas Conference here has two issues looming in the background that have the potential to upend the freight brokerage industry, one of which will arrive over months and years and another which could land at any time.
The longer-term impact will come from AI. But that is solidly embedded in brokerage already, as evidenced by the large number of sponsors, exhibitors and speakers at the meeting, all of them offering AI-related services to the 3PL community and trying to differentiate themselves from a growing pack.
But more pressing is the case of Montgomery vs. Caribe, the litigation that was presented in oral arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court in early March and is expected to settle, once and for all (as much as any legal precedent can be viewed as truly final), whether the so-called safety exception of a federal law means brokers can be held liable for the actions of a carrier that they booked to move a load.
Lynn Gravely, the CEO of NT Logistics who is taking over as TIA chair, told the opening session of the conference that Montgomery vs. Caribe is a “tomorrow” problem. (The irony is that his remarks on Thursday came one day before the Supreme Court is expected to release opinions on some cases, but it is likely too soon for a decision to be rendered in Montgomery.)
“If the court narrows federal protections, your risk goes up, my risk goes up, insurance gets more expensive and every carrier lawsuit, every carrier decision becomes a potential lawsuit in a jurisdiction that wasn’t playing by the same rules,” Gravely said.
What are the issues?
At issue in Montgomery is the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (F4A), which prohibits state action that might impact a “price, route or service” of a transportation provider. (It is not directed just at trucking).
F4A also has a clause known as the safety exception that does allow a state to pursue action, such as a tort in a state court, where the issue is the safety performance of the transportation company. The exception says it is “with respect to motor vehicles.” The issue is whether that clause brings in brokerages.
A split in circuit court decisions in recent years on that question ultimately led to the Supreme Court granting certiorari on the issue of whether the safety exception can be used by a plaintiff to sue a brokerage. In the case of Montgomery, a truck driver who was seriously injured after being struck by a Caribe Transport II truck while on the side of the road sued the broker who booked the carrier, C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW).
The Seventh Circuit tossed C.H. Robinson out of the case, concluding that the safety exception does not apply to brokerages. Therefore, according to the 7th Circuit decision, they fall under the ban on state action regarding a “price, route or service.”
Despite being out of the case, it was C.H. Robinson that argued the brokerage community’s case before the high court. (Caribe II is a carrier with an undetermined number of power units but believed to be less than five).
Gravely told the TIA audience that brokers “should prepare for both outcomes, because the brokers who wait for the ruling to start adjusting will already be behind. These are tomorrow’s problems.”
TIA chair Lynn Gravey at the opening session of the group’s Capital Ideas Conference.
There is an old adage in the brokerage industry, Gravely said: “You bet your company on every single load.”
The TIA filed an amicus brief in the Montgomery case. Marc Blubaugh and his team in the transportation practice at the Benesch law firm is the outside counsel for TIA that wrote the brief submitted by the organization.
In a fireside chat between Blubaugh and Justin Olsen, chief risk officer with LOGISTIQ, Olsen noted that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had specifically cited some of the arguments in the TIA brief during the oral arguments and “seemed to be the one that was most in tune with the practical effects” of whatever decision comes down.
Olsen added that TIA would not speculate when the decision might be released (though Blubaugh told FreightWaves after the session that the chances of it landing Friday, which would be like a bomb landing in the middle of the TIA meeting, was “highly unlikely.”)
What happens after the decision comes down
A decision in the brokers’ favor–which would conclude that brokers are not “with respect to motor vehicles” and are protected from legal action under the “price, route or service” clause– “will benefit everyone here in this room,” Blubaugh said.
“It will essentially take off the table one of the thorniest claims that brokers have to contend with, which is the allegation that you were negligent in choosing a given carrier,” Blubaugh said. “That claim will vanish.”
It doesn’t shut the door on all litigation, Blubaugh said. “But it can give you all peace of mind again to know that when it comes to carrier selection, the core service that all of you are providing, that the Supreme Court agrees that you have the discretion to do as you see fit at that point in time, that there will not be a claim that you were negligent in choosing a federally licensed motor carrier to haul your customer’s goods or cargo. “
What happens if the brokerage community loses? What if the Supreme Court concludes that the safety exception “with respect to motor vehicles” actually means brokers can be successfully sued for their carrier selection practices?
“You can imagine that the plaintiffs’ personal injury bar will be emboldened in the event that there is an unfavorable decision,” Blubaugh said. Claims against brokerages will “continue to
metastasize, increase in number and the risk will be significant for the brokerage community.”
In the event of an industry loss, Blubaugh said, Insurance underwriters “are going to have to kind of reevaluate the nature of the risk that they’re underwriting, knowing that there will no longer be enough for a defense when it comes to preemption.” The term preemption in this context defines the protection F4A has provided to brokerages in some cases even as other courts have ruled F4A does not preempt negligence or liability findings against a broker.
Whatever way the court rules, Blubaugh said, he expects the losing side will pressure Congress to change F4A to better define the safety exception in their favor.
Today and next year issues
Gravely, in his remarks, defined the Montgomery case as the “tomorrow” issue for the brokerage community.
The “today” issue is freight fraud. And the “next year” issue is AI.
“Cargo theft and fraud are hitting our bottom lines directly, through claims, through write offs, through the operational chaos of freight that disappears mid transit, and through the damage it does to our reputation with our shippers each and every day, those shippers that trust us,” Gravely said of the “today” problem. “This isn’t abstract industry risk.”
Gravely’s recommendation to the audience on AI was to “run toward it. Adopt it, use it, let it handle the transaction.”
What would then be left for the people at the brokerage, he said, would be “judgement, relationships, that phone call at 11 o’clock at night when a load is stranded and your customers need someone who actually cares about their business.”
More articles by John Kingston
Will the end of DEF sensors mean a reduction in its consumption?
California regulators have started a regulatory push on diesel TRU emissions
ATBS: average truck driver earnings in 2025 held mostly stable from ‘24
The post At TIA meeting, freight brokers brace for Supreme Court decision appeared first on FreightWaves.