Circuit Court Split Alert: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That Negligent Selection Claims Against Freight Brokers Are Not Preempted by the FAAAA Because They Are Saved by the “Safety Exception”
July 2025 • Source: Gallagher Sharp LLP
On July 8, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff’s claim for negligent selection/hiring against a freight broker was: 1) preempted by the 1994 Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) found in 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), and 2) saved by the “safety exception” found in 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A). See Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 6th Cir. No. 24-3599 (July 8, 2025).
In Cox, the freight broker, Total Quality Logistics, Inc. (“TQL”), hired/selected a motor carrier, Global Transit, Inc. (“Global Transit”), to transport a load from Illinois to California. Global Transit was involved in an accident with the decedent and her husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit against numerous defendants, including TQL, claiming it negligently hired/selected Global Transit.
Though the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the freight broker’s motion to dismiss, the Sixth Circuit reversed on the basis that plaintiff’s negligent hiring/selection claim fell within the scope of the “safety exception,” which is defined as “the safety regulatory of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A).
The Sixth Circuit concluded that plaintiff’s negligent hiring/selection claim meets the definition of the “safety exception” because the claim encompasses the “safety regulatory of a State” as it seeks “to enforce a standard of care on brokers, which in turn, requires brokers to do their due diligence in ensuring that they are hiring safe motor carriers. This type of tort claim is, therefore, ‘genuinely responsive to safety concerns.’”
Next, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s negligent hiring/selection claim is “with respect to motor vehicles” because “[s]imply put there is no way to disentangle motor vehicles from [plaintiff’s] claim…Plaintiff’s claim seeks to enforce a common law requirement that brokers exercise reasonable care in selecting a safe motor carrier to transport goods by motor vehicle. This requirement would necessarily constitute an exercise of a state’s regulatory authority ‘with respect to,’ or concerning, ‘motor vehicles.’”
Though this decision is certainly disappointing, we hope the Supreme Court of the United States will now recognize the split between the circuits and the need to address whether the “safety exception” indeed applies to tort claims against a broker. Compare Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., 6th Cir. No. 24-3599 (July 8, 2025); Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016, 1030–31 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that negligent hiring claims against brokers fall within the safety exception and are thus not preempted by the Act), with Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261, 1272 (11th Cir. 2023) (concluding that negligent hiring claims against brokers are preempted because they are not “with respect to motor vehicles”); Ye v. GlobalTranz Enters., Inc., 74 F.4th 453, 464 (7th Cir. 2023) (agreeing with Aspen that the Act preempts negligent hiring claims against brokers.)
We also recommend that freight brokers continue to assert the FAAAA preemption defense early, file dispositive motions, and file appeals until the Supreme Court of the United States addresses this issue. |