Weighing In on a Split: State Appellate Court Clarifies Safety Exceptions Against Trucking Brokers
In a landmark decision on August 18, 2025, an Illinois state appellate court ruled that state law “negligent selection” claims against freight brokers are preserved under the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) of 1994, specifically 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2). This ruling, highlighted in posts on X and legal analyses, addresses a contentious circuit split regarding whether brokers can be held liable for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers involved in crashes. By affirming that such claims fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception, the court has clarified the scope of broker liability, potentially reshaping the legal landscape for trucking-related litigation in the United States. This article explores the ruling’s details, its implications for the trucking industry, the broader context of broker liability, and future trends in this evolving area of law.
The Illinois Appellate Court Ruling: A Win for Safety Accountability
The Illinois appellate court’s decision in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics (TQL) reversed a lower court’s dismissal of negligent selection claims against the freight broker, TQL, reinforcing that such claims are not preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff alleged that TQL negligently hired Golden Transit, a motor carrier with a documented history of safety violations, as evidenced by data from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Safety Measurement System. The court held that these claims fall under the FAAAA’s safety exception, which preserves state laws “with respect to motor vehicles” and their safety regulatory authority. This ruling aligns with the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision and joins the Ninth Circuit’s precedent in Miller v. C.H. Robinson (2020), creating a 2–2 circuit split with the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, which have ruled oppositely.
The court emphasized that negligent hiring claims against brokers promote safety by incentivizing due diligence in carrier selection. It rejected TQL’s argument that the FAAAA’s preemption clause, which bars state laws related to a broker’s “price, route, or service,” shields them from liability. Instead, the court found that claims targeting a broker’s failure to vet unsafe carriers have a direct “connection with” motor vehicles, satisfying the safety exception. This interpretation draws on the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance in City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc. (2002), which clarified that the safety exception preserves state tort claims aimed at enhancing public safety.
Background: The Circuit Split and Broker Liability Debate
The FAAAA, enacted to deregulate interstate commerce, preempts state laws that significantly impact a broker’s services unless they fall under specific exceptions, such as the safety exception. This has led to conflicting interpretations across federal circuits:
- Ninth Circuit (Miller v. C.H. Robinson, 2020): Held that negligent hiring claims against brokers are not preempted, as they promote safety and connect to motor vehicles, even indirectly. The court allowed claims against C.H. Robinson for hiring a carrier whose driver caused a crash, leaving the plaintiff quadriplegic.
- Sixth Circuit (2025): Aligned with the Ninth Circuit in Cox v. TQL, ruling that TQL’s disregard for FMCSA safety data constituted negligence under the safety exception.
- Seventh Circuit (Ying Ye v. GlobalTranz, 2023): Found that negligent hiring claims against brokers are preempted, as they relate to broker services rather than motor vehicle safety directly.
- Eleventh Circuit (Aspen Am. Ins. v. Landstar, 2023; Gauthier v. TQL, 2024): Ruled that the safety exception does not apply to brokers, as it requires a direct relationship to motor vehicles, not broker hiring practices.
This split has created uncertainty for brokers, carriers, and plaintiffs, with outcomes varying by jurisdiction. The Illinois ruling, while not binding on federal courts, strengthens the position of plaintiffs in state courts and may influence future federal decisions, especially given its alignment with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
Implications for the Trucking Industry
For Plaintiffs
The ruling is a significant victory for crash victims seeking to hold brokers accountable. By affirming that negligent selection claims fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception, the court ensures that brokers like TQL face liability for failing to check publicly available safety data, such as FMCSA’s SAFER or Safety Measurement System records. This could lead to increased filings in states like Illinois, where plaintiffs can now pursue brokers alongside carriers and drivers. The decision also bolsters arguments for punitive damages if brokers knowingly hire carriers with poor safety records, as seen in cases like Serna v. Pettey Leach Trucking Inc. (2003), which established non-delegable duties for carriers.
However, plaintiffs face challenges in proving negligence. They must demonstrate that brokers had access to safety data and failed to act, requiring robust discovery into broker practices. The emphasis on FMCSA data also means plaintiffs need detailed evidence linking a carrier’s safety violations to the crash.
For Freight Brokers
For brokers, the ruling increases liability exposure in jurisdictions following the Sixth and Ninth Circuits’ reasoning. Companies like TQL, C.H. Robinson, and GlobalTranz must now enhance due diligence, regularly checking FMCSA databases and maintaining records to show reasonable care in carrier selection. Failure to do so could result in costly lawsuits, especially in catastrophic injury or wrongful death cases, where damages can reach tens of millions.
Brokers may respond by tightening carrier vetting processes, potentially increasing operational costs. Smaller brokers, with fewer resources, could face disproportionate burdens, while larger firms like TQL might absorb these costs more easily. The ruling also pressures brokers to negotiate stronger indemnification clauses in contracts with carriers to mitigate liability risks.
For Carriers and Insurers
Motor carriers with poor safety records may find it harder to secure contracts, as brokers prioritize compliance to avoid liability. This could accelerate market consolidation, favoring larger carriers with better safety profiles. Insurers, meanwhile, may raise premiums for brokers and carriers, reflecting heightened litigation risks. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) has noted that rising insurance costs can lead to wage cuts or hiring less experienced drivers, potentially exacerbating safety issues.
Broader Context: Safety vs. Deregulation
The ruling reflects a broader tension between safety regulation and the FAAAA’s deregulatory intent. Congress enacted the FAAAA to streamline interstate commerce by limiting state interference in pricing, routes, and services. However, the safety exception was designed to preserve states’ authority to regulate motor vehicle safety, including through tort law. Courts like the Illinois appellate court and the Ninth Circuit interpret this exception broadly, viewing negligent hiring claims as a tool to enforce safety standards. In contrast, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits prioritize deregulation, arguing that broker liability imposes undue economic burdens.
This debate is critical as truck crashes rise, with over 5,000 fatalities annually, a 50% increase from a decade ago. High-profile cases, like those involving C.H. Robinson and TQL, highlight the human cost of lax oversight, fueling calls for accountability. Safety advocates argue that holding brokers liable incentivizes better practices, while industry groups like the ATA claim it risks “plaintiff-attorney profiteering” and higher costs.
Recent state laws in Texas, Florida, and Iowa, backed by trucking lobbyists, aim to limit carrier and broker liability, such as requiring driver liability before suing companies. These laws contrast with the Illinois ruling, illustrating a patchwork of regulations that the U.S. Supreme Court may need to resolve.
Future Trends: Toward Supreme Court Resolution?
The 2–2 circuit split, now reinforced by the Illinois decision, increases pressure for U.S. Supreme Court review. The Court has declined to hear similar cases, such as Miller v. C.H. Robinson (2022) and Ying Ye v. GlobalTranz (2024), but the growing conflict may compel action, especially if a fifth circuit rules, as speculated in the pending Fifth Circuit case. A Supreme Court ruling could standardize broker liability nationwide, either shielding brokers under FAAAA preemption or affirming state tort claims under the safety exception.
In the interim, brokers are likely to adopt proactive measures:
- Enhanced Vetting: Regular FMCSA data checks and internal audits to document carrier safety compliance.
- Contractual Safeguards: Stronger indemnification and insurance requirements for carriers.
- Technology Integration: Use of AI-driven platforms to monitor carrier safety in real-time, reducing reliance on manual checks.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys, meanwhile, will leverage the ruling to target brokers in jurisdictions favorable to the safety exception, emphasizing FMCSA data and prior carrier violations. States like California, with a history of holding carriers to non-delegable duties, may see similar state-level rulings.
Legal and Practical Considerations
For plaintiffs, pursuing broker liability requires meticulous documentation, including FMCSA safety records and evidence of broker negligence. Statutes of limitations (typically 2–3 years) necessitate timely filings, and attorneys must navigate MDLs or state courts depending on case specifics. For brokers, compliance with FMCSA regulations and transparent hiring practices are critical to mitigating risk. Legal representation from firms like Scopelitis or Gentry Locke, specializing in transportation law, can help navigate these complexities.
The ruling also raises questions about federal preemption under the Commerce Clause and potential conflicts with state tort law. If the Supreme Court takes up the issue, it may clarify the balance between federal deregulation and state safety authority, impacting not just trucking but other regulated industries.
Conclusion: A Step Toward Clarity, but Uncertainty Persists
The Illinois appellate court’s ruling in Cox v. TQL marks a pivotal moment in the debate over freight broker liability, affirming that negligent selection claims fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception. By aligning with the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, the decision strengthens plaintiffs’ ability to hold brokers accountable for hiring unsafe carriers, particularly in states prioritizing safety regulation. However, the circuit split with the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits underscores ongoing uncertainty, with outcomes varying by jurisdiction. As the trucking industry braces for potential Supreme Court intervention, brokers, carriers, and plaintiffs must navigate a complex legal landscape where safety, liability, and deregulation collide. This ruling, while clarifying one state’s stance, signals that the broader battle over broker accountability is far from resolved.