The freight brokerage industry is entering a new era. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Montgomery, my phone and email have been nonstop with brokers, shippers, insurers, and transportation attorneys all asking the same question: What is now considered the industry standard for vetting a carrier?
After spending years advising brokers, building carrier vetting technology, analyzing carrier risk data, and serving as an expert witness in negligent selection litigation, one thing has become increasingly clear: the industry is rapidly moving toward a measurable broker standard of care.
The question is no longer whether brokers have responsibilities when selecting carriers. The question is what courts, juries, insurers, and the industry itself will consider reasonable in a modern transportation environment where enormous amounts of safety data are publicly available. The reality is that most brokers are already doing a very good job.
Many of today’s sophisticated brokers have evolved far beyond simply checking FMCSA authority and insurance. They utilize carrier onboarding teams, continuous monitoring platforms, insurance verification tools, inspection analysis, fraud prevention controls, and internal escalation procedures that did not exist at scale even a decade ago.
In my work reviewing broker operations and carrier selection practices across the industry, I regularly see brokers implementing meaningful and defensible vetting procedures that demonstrate just how much the industry has matured.
But there remains a very small segment of the market still operating under an outdated philosophy: if the carrier has active FMCSA authority and insurance, the load can move. That approach is out of date and difficult to defend.
One of the biggest misconceptions in transportation litigation is the belief that FMCSA authority somehow represents a government safety endorsement. It does not. Operating authority simply means a carrier is authorized to operate in interstate commerce. It does not mean the carrier has acceptable inspection history, strong safety management controls, reasonable out of service percentages, or a satisfactory operational profile.
Yet in negligent selection cases across the country, a handful of brokers still defend claims by arguing they relied primarily on authority status without meaningfully evaluating available DOT safety data. That becomes problematic when publicly available information reveals warning signs that were either ignored or never reviewed at all.
Today, brokers have access to unprecedented amounts of operational and safety information through FMCSA databases, CSA scores, inspection histories, crash indicators, insurance monitoring systems, and third party risk platforms. Plaintiffs’ attorneys know this. Courts know this. Insurers know this. And increasingly, juries understand it as well.
In expert witness work involving catastrophic crashes, a recurring issue emerges repeatedly: many brokers already conduct sophisticated safety analysis before tendering freight. They review inspection history. They monitor unsafe driving indicators. They analyze out of service percentages. They examine crash trends. They implement fraud prevention controls. They continuously monitor carrier status changes and document exceptions. Those practices matter because they establish what is operationally realistic and commercially achievable within the brokerage industry today.
In other words, the standard is no longer theoretical. When large portions of the industry are already implementing meaningful carrier vetting controls, it becomes increasingly difficult for another broker to argue that reviewing publicly available safety data is unreasonable or impractical. This is how standards of care evolve in every industry. What begins as a best practice gradually becomes an expected practice. Eventually, expected practice becomes the benchmark against which negligence is measured.
Transportation brokerage is now moving through that transition. Importantly, reasonable vetting does not require perfection. No broker can eliminate every transportation risk. No vetting system can predict every crash. The issue is not whether a broker failed to foresee an accident with perfect accuracy. The issue is whether the broker exercised reasonable judgment using the safety information already available to them. There is a substantial difference between evaluating operational risk, documenting a decision, and exercising professional judgment versus simply verifying authority and dispatching freight without further analysis. That distinction increasingly defines modern negligent selection litigation.
Another major shift occurring in transportation litigation is the sophistication of modern juries. Jurors today live in a data driven world. They understand risk scoring, analytics, monitoring systems, and operational oversight in virtually every aspect of life. When plaintiffs’ attorneys present evidence showing publicly available warning signs that were ignored during carrier selection, jurors increasingly understand the significance of that omission. The defense argument that “the carrier had authority” can sound incomplete when contrasted against extensive safety indicators suggesting deeper operational concerns.
Insurers are paying attention as well. Underwriters and excess carriers increasingly recognize that broker vetting practices directly impact litigation exposure and claim severity. Brokers with documented vetting procedures, continuous monitoring protocols, fraud prevention controls, and formalized safety review processes are often in a far stronger position during both underwriting and litigation. This trend will only continue.
The future of broker liability will center on documentation, consistency, measurable safety analysis, and defensible operational decision making. The industry already possesses the tools. The data already exists. And most brokers are already adapting appropriately.
The brokers who continue relying solely on FMCSA authority while ignoring available DOT safety data may eventually find themselves defending practices that much of the industry abandoned years ago. That is ultimately where the broker standard of care conversation is heading. Not toward impossible perfection. But toward reasonable, measurable, and defensible carrier selection practices grounded in the operational realities of modern transportation safety data.
Cassandra Gaines is the founder and CEO of Carrier Assure and a nationally recognized transportation attorney and expert witness specializing in broker liability, carrier vetting, and transportation risk management. She advises brokers, shippers, insurers, and law firms on negligent selection exposure, FMCSA safety data, cargo theft prevention, and defensible carrier selection practices. Gaines previously held legal and leadership roles at large brokerages and trucking companies and has become a leading voice on transportation safety analytics and broker standard of care issues. She has spoken at more than 100 industry conferences nationwide and was named one of Business Insider’s “100 People Transforming Business in North America.” Cassandra can be reached at cassandra@carrierassure.com.
The post The broker standard of care after Montgomery appeared first on FreightWaves.
