Courts throughout the country have been grappling with the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) and property brokers’ defenses against state law tort claims. However, on July 9, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit sharpened brokers’ defenses in a favorable ruling by holding that FAAAA preempted a plaintiff’s negligent selection claim against a broker. See Gauthier v. Hard to Stop, LLC, et al., 2024 WL 3338944 (11th Cir. 2024) (Per Curiam). This ruling comes with no surprise and aligns squarely with its previous ruling, Aspen American Insurance Company v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023). Specifically, it confirms that Aspen, which found negligent selection claims against a broker preempted in the cargo loss and damage context, is also applicable to cases arising out of bodily injury claims. Gauthier, 2024 WL 3338944 at *2 (“Our holding in Aspen that a challenge to a broker’s front-end selection of a motor carrier is preempted in no way turned on the back-end injury suffered as a result of the allegedly negligent selection.”).

The facts at issue in Gauthier are similar to most broker liability cases. Katie Gauthier, the widow of Peter Gauthier, filed suit against Hard to Stop LLC (“Hard to Stop”) and Total Quality Logistics, LLC, following the death of her husband who collided with a tractor trailer. Id. at *1. She alleged that TQL was liable for her husband’s death pursuant to Georgia negligence law because TQL had had a duty to “ensure that the motor carriers with whom it arranged transportation of goods were reasonably safe.” Id. TQL filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claim was preempted by FAAAA. The district court agreed with TQL and dismissed Mrs. Gauthier’s negligent selection claim. against TQL. Mrs. Gauthier appealed, citing to the safety exception. The Eleventh Circuit, however, affirmed. Id. *1-2.

The Eleventh Circuit analyzed Mrs. Gauthier’s claims and determined that they were “materially indistinguishable from the claim in Aspen.” Id. at *2. Thus, it held that her claim fell within the FAAAA’s preemptive scope. Id. Furthermore, it found that her claim “against a broker” is necessarily one step removed from a ‘motor vehicle,’ as articulated in Aspen, and thus, not preserved from preemption by the safety exception. Id.

In an effort to attempt to distinguish her claim, Mrs. Gauthier contended that her case, which arose from a traffic accident, should be treated differently than cases like Aspen which arise from property loss. Notably, several district courts have recognized this exact issue. See e.g. Hawkins, v. Milan Express, Inc. et al, No. 3:22-CV-51, 2024 WL 2559728 (E.D. Tenn. May 24, 2024) (“Aspen dealt with negligence claims against a transportation broker based on stolen goods, not personal injury.”).  However, the Eleventh Circuit cleared up any uncertainty and held the “the nature of the injury is not what matters for purposes of the [FAAAA] Act’s preemption provision. Any claim that a broker negligently selected driver to haul a load of property clearly falls within Section 14501(c)(1)[.]” Gauthier, 2024 WL 3338944 at *2. Furthermore, it reiterated that negligent selection claims against a broker do not fall within the purview of the safety exception because the relevant state law necessarily lacks a direct relationship to motor vehicles. Id. (quoting Aspen, 65 F.4th at 1271).  Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed that Aspen is binding and affirmed the district court. Id.

Though Gauthier comes to us at no surprise, this decision quiets any uncertainty that may have existed following Aspen, regarding whether FAAAA was limited to property loss claims. For those keeping score, the Ninth Circuit has now ruled against federal preemption of negligent-selection broker claims, while the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have both found in favor of preemption against these claims. The remaining circuits have yet to make any determinations; however, district courts are issuing opinions on an almost weekly basis.