Sue a Freight Broker After a Truck Crash?

Yes, you can sue a freight broker after a Michigan truck crash. But the driver's or trucking company's fault does not automatically make the broker liable. A claim against the broker needs its own legal basis and evidence tying the broker's role or conduct to the injury. The Supreme Court removed one federal barrier to an unsafe-carrier selection claim in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II; Michigan law still decides whether the claim can succeed.

What is a freight broker, and how is it different from the trucking company?

A freight broker is a person or company paid to arrange for an authorized trucking company to haul someone else's goods (49 CFR 371.2).

The trucking company, called the motor carrier, operates the truck and hires or contracts with the driver. The shipper is the party sending the goods. The broker usually does not own the truck or employ the driver.

The broker's name may not appear on the truck or in the police crash report. Some companies work as both brokers and carriers, so the role a company took on for that specific shipment matters.

What did the Supreme Court say about this?

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, a person seriously injured by a truck sued the broker that had arranged the load. The lawsuit claimed the broker carelessly chose a trucking company with a poor federal safety record. The trial court and federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act blocked the claim.

On May 14, 2026, that decision was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court.

The law generally blocks state rules about trucking prices, routes and services, but preserves state authority over safety with respect to motor vehicles. The Court held that this negligent-selection claim falls within that safety exception.

The ruling resolves only the preemption issue, which is whether the federal statute overrides the state-law claim. Whether the broker owed a duty, breached it and caused the injuries remains a question of the applicable state law and evidence.

Why is Michigan law the harder question?

In a published 1998 decision, Reeves v. Kmart, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided that a company generally owes no duty to use care in choosing or keeping an independent contractor. This means a company generally can't be held liable for negligence based only on how it chose or kept the contractor.

Kmart hired a waste hauling company. After a pickup at a Kmart store, one of the hauler's trucks crashed on a freeway service drive, killing a family of four in another car. An inspection later found defective brakes and underinflated tires.

The plaintiffs argued that Kmart should have investigated whether the hauler's trucks were safe and its drivers qualified. The court ruled for Kmart. Reeves did not involve a freight broker, so the broker's role and the facts of the shipment still matter.

What facts can make a broker liable?

The broker's role and conduct may support other grounds for liability. Each has its own requirements.

Control over how the work was performed. Routine load assignments or delivery instructions alone do not necessarily make a broker responsible for a contractor's negligence. The question is whether the broker controlled how the work was done (Reeves v. Kmart). Communications about directions given to the driver may matter.

Acting as the carrier. A company may arrange one load as a broker and transport another as a carrier. Its role on this shipment matters, including whether it accepted legal responsibility to transport the goods. Directing a driver alone does not settle carrier status (49 CFR 371.2).

Inherently dangerous work. This is a narrow legal doctrine, not another way of saying that a truck crash was dangerous. The analysis concerns a special danger inherent in the contracted work and the defendant's duty to the injured person. The doctrine protects third parties; it does not extend to the contractor or its employees performing the dangerous work (DeShambo v. Nielsen).

Safety services the broker undertook. A company may assume a duty through services it undertakes to protect others. The scope of those services and the other requirements of that theory matter. An unpublished medical-transport case rejected this theory on its facts (Davis v. State Farm). A general promise to use safe carriers should not be treated as automatic liability.

Warning signs about the carrier. Records of what the broker knew about a carrier's safety rating, inspection history or out-of-service orders can help explain its choice. But evidence of a poor safety record does not, by itself, answer the duty question under Reeves.

Connections to another state. Michigan courts apply Michigan law unless there is a "rational reason" to use another jurisdiction's law (Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Service). A broker or carrier based elsewhere may raise that question, but an out-of-state address alone does not decide it. Courts examine the interests of Michigan and the other jurisdiction.

Why can a broker's role matter in a serious truck case?

In a Michigan injury case, each defendant generally pays only its own share of the fault. The jury can also consider fault assigned to people outside the lawsuit under MCL 600.2956 and MCL 600.2957. Other defendants generally do not pay that share, although an employer can still be responsible for its employee's fault.

A jury can assign negligence fault to a company outside the lawsuit only if that company owed the injured person a legal duty (Romain v. Frankenmuth). A broker's involvement in the shipment does not, by itself, allow a jury to assign it negligence fault.

Insurance matters too. After a crash causing catastrophic injuries or a death, the trucking company's coverage may not reach the full losses. Federal rules require a broker to keep a $75,000 surety bond or trust fund, but it is not injury coverage. It pays shippers or motor carriers if the broker fails to carry out its transportation contracts or arrangements (49 CFR 387.307). Michigan Legal Center's overview of Michigan truck accident damage caps explains how damages limits work in these cases.

How do Michigan no-fault limits affect a broker claim?

Filing a claim against a broker does not automatically avoid Michigan's limits on pain-and-suffering damages. When a claim arises from a defendant's ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, those damages generally require death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement (MCL 500.3135).

Michigan law distinguishes that vehicle-related liability from liability arising from other conduct. The Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed that distinction in Cooper v. Auto Club Insurance Association, citing Citizens Insurance v. Tuttle. Neither case decided a freight broker's liability. The broker's actual role and the legal theory involved need to be evaluated before deciding which no-fault restrictions apply.

Which records show how the carrier was chosen?

The answer to the broker question is usually in the paperwork behind the load. Records worth identifying early include:

the load tender and rate confirmation between the broker and the carrier
the bill of lading
the broker-carrier agreement
the broker's carrier setup or vetting file
messages among the broker, dispatcher and driver showing who directed the trip and how
the carrier's public Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration registration and safety records

Most of these records are held by the broker, carrier or shipper, and some can be lost or overwritten over time. An attorney can send preservation requests early. Before giving a recorded statement to a trucking company, broker or insurer, get advice about your rights and any obligations under your own policy. Michigan Legal Center's checklist for truck accident evidence preservation covers the broader list of records, including electronic logs and vehicle data.

If you were seriously hurt or lost a family member in a Michigan truck crash, contact Michigan Legal Center for a free case review. Michigan Legal Center's truck accident attorneys can help prevent the load records from being lost before anyone examines whether a broker or another company belongs in the claim.