TQL asks Supreme Court to resolve issue of broker negligence in motor carrier crashes

Despite winning its wrongful death case in a federal appellate court, broker Total Quality Logistics (TQL) is asking the Supreme Court to hear its case to resolve conflicting rulings at circuit courts that address whether a broker is liable for crashes involving motor carriers it has hired.

On Tuesday, Dec. 10, TQL filed its brief with the Supreme Court in a case stemming from a fatal crash involving a motor carrier it hired. The victim’s wife, Kathy Gauthier, claimed the broker should be liable for negligent hiring.

Both the district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A) protects brokers from personal injury negligence claims. In November, Gauthier petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case and overturn the ruling.

Typically, the party on the winning side of the appellate case will urge the Supreme Court to deny the petition to secure its win. However, this is not the first or second time the high court has been asked to weigh in on the topic, and TQL wants to put the issue to rest.

F4A

F4A was enacted in 1994 in an attempt to address the patchwork of state regulations for motor carriers.

In short, a state cannot enact a law or regulation related to the price, route or service of any motor carrier, broker or freight forwarder.

A state law is preempted by F4A if two requirements are met:

1. A state must have enacted or attempted to enforce a law
2. That law must relate to a broker’s rates, routes or services either by expressly referring to them or by having a significant economic effect on them

However, there is a safety exception stating that the rule cannot restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles. At least one circuit court has applied this safety exception, while two others have rejected that argument.

Conflicting rulings sending mixed signals

Several brokers have faced similar lawsuits across the country, with some jurisdictions putting them on the hook for a crash involving a motor carrier they hired and others dismissing the case by invoking F4A.

In September 2020, the Ninth Circuit determined in Miller v. C.H. Robinson that brokers can be held responsible for negligent hiring under F4A’s safety exception, marking the first time a circuit court ruled on the issue. The decision kept C.H. Robinson on the hook in a personal injury lawsuit involving a motor carrier it hired.

C.H. Robinson petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. That petition attracted a lot of attention from stakeholders, including an amicus brief filed by leading industry freight brokers that included TQL. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and C.H. Robinson ended up settling.

In April 2023, the 11th Circuit ruled in favor of Landstar, finding that F4A preempts state law in negligence claims against a broker based on its selection of a motor carrier. However, that case involved cargo theft, not personal injury.

Last July, the Seventh Circuit took broker GlobalTranz off the hook in a negligent hiring case filed in an Illinois district court.

The appellate panel disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the safety exception applies in these cases. Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. Despite the circuit split caused by the Seventh Circuit’s decision, the high court again punted on the case.

As a result, any similar case that occurs outside the Ninth or Seventh Circuit can draw from either court’s decision, creating uncertainty in personal injury cases involving a broker.

Although the 11th Circuit’s decision is its first involving broker negligent hiring in a personal injury case, the opinion was not published. Consequently, district courts under the 11th Circuit are not bound to that ruling. A motion to publish the opinion was denied.

Third time’s a charm?

In TQL’s case, Gauthier is asking the Supreme Court to apply F4A’s safety exception, while the broker is asking to settle the score by affirming the F4A preemption.

In its brief agreeing with Gauthier that her petition should be granted, TQL states that the issue of broker negligence “is exceedingly important to the national transportation industry.”

“Although the court of appeals reached the correct result in this case, the question presented is one of considerable importance to the transportation industry,” TQL states in the brief. “The increasing uncertainty concerning the question presented not only imposes significant costs on respondents and other freight brokers but also undermines Congress’ deregulatory objectives in enacting the (F4A). Moreover, this case is a suitable vehicle to resolve the conflict on the question presented.”

If the Supreme Court grants the petition, brokers will get the certainty for which they have been asking for years. However, they may not get this certainty they have been seeking.

The Supreme Court also may decide to punt on the case for a third time, keeping brokers in a compromising situation they have been in for years: liable for motor carrier crashes in some parts of the country but off the hook in other jurisdictions. LL