Share
  • Download PDF 

Case Note: New Year, New Me? Not Quite – Seventh Circuit Reaffirms Its Position with Broker Liability Claims.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another favorable ruling regarding broker liability for highway accidents.

Background on District Court Case

In the matter of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (“Robinson”) brokered a shipment for transportation to Caribe Transport II, LLC (“Caribe”). No. 24-1192, 2025 WL 21386, *1 (7th Cir. 2025). Yosniel Varela-Mojena (‘Mojena”), Caribe’s employee, transported the load. Id. While in transit, Mojena veered off the road and struck Shawn Montgomery’s vehicle, which was parked on the shoulder of an Illinois Highway. Id. Mr. Montgomery sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision. Id.

Mr. Montgomery sued Robinson and alleged that Robinson negligently hired Mojena and Caribe and was vicariously liable for their torts. Id. The Southern District of Illinois granted judgment on both claims in favor of Robinson. Id. First, it found Mojena and Caribe were Robinson’s independent contractors, not its agents. Id. Thus, it concluded that Robinson was not vicariously liable. Id. Second, the Southern District of Illinois relied on Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., and determined that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (“FAAAA”) preemption provision barred Mr. Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim against Robinson. Id.

Seventh Circuit Affirms:

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination. Id. at *2-4. Mr. Montgomery first argued that Caribe’s relationship with Robinson supported finding an agency relationship. Id. at *2. Under Illinois law (as in most jurisdictions), a principal is vicariously liable only for the conduct of its agent, not for the conduct of an independent contractor. Id. Here, the Seventh Circuit found that there was no issue of material fact; the carrier and its driver were not the agents of Robinson. Id. *2-3. Specifically, the Court found that Robinson did not do any of the following factors that generally form an agency relationship:

  • provide or maintain Caribe’s equipment;
  • choose the driver, route, hours of service, or locations of rest and fuel stops, including the subject load;
  • pay drivers or even Caribe directly for the loads;
  • withhold taxes or benefits from these payments;
  • make hiring or firing decisions for Caribe; or
  • provide Caribe’s drivers with any training, instruction manuals, or uniforms.

Id. at *4. Rather, the evidence demonstrated Robinson lacked control over Caribe. Id. First, Mojena drove under Caribe’s insurance at all times and both parties maintained the power to terminate the relationship at any time. Id. Second, Robinson’s requirement that Caribe provide it with information about the driver hauling a load, their hours of service, and the locations of the trucks demonstrated control on Caribe’s behalf, not Robinson’s. Id. at *3. Third, Robinson’s requirement that Mojena download MacroPoint – a passive tracking technology that does not have two-way communication – on his cellphone was not evidence of Robinson dictating delivery of the shipment. Id. at *2. Rather, the Court opined that “a broker does not dictate how a driver performs a delivery when it uses software applications or check-in calls to monitor its status.” Id. Finally, Robinson and Caribe adhered to their Broker/Carrier Agreement, which specified that Caribe was to be Robinson’s independent contractor, not its agent. Id. As such, the Seventh Circuit determined that the evidence demonstrated Caribe and Mojena were Robinson’s independent contractors, not agents. Id. at *4. Thus, the district court did not err in its summary judgment determination. Id.

Second, Mr. Montgomery conceded that Ye foreclosed his negligent hiring claims. Id. at *2. Yet, he asked the court to reconsider and overrule Ye. Id. The Seventh Circuit declined any opportunity to do so. Id. at *4. As a result, Ye remains good law, and the Court affirmed the district court’s determination as to Mr. Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim. Id. at *3.

Broker Takeaways

The Seventh Circuit reinforces its promise to continue to bar state law claims against brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers and their drivers. For those keeping track, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have both found in favor of federal preemption against state law tort claims, while the Ninth Circuit has ruled against it. The remaining circuits have yet to make any determinations; however, district courts are issuing opinions on an almost weekly basis.

The Scopelitis Law Firm’s Highway Accident, Wrongful Death & Personal Injury Defense and Brokerage & Non-Asset Logistics groups are actively tracking all opinions within this realm. Attorneys within the groups are readily available to assist with any brokerage liability questions in this everchanging landscape.

Related Topics

News from Scopelitis is intended as a report to our clients and friends on developments affecting the transportation industry. The published material does not constitute an exhaustive legal study and should not be regarded or relied upon as individual legal advice or opinion.

Case Note: New Year, New Me? Not Quite – Seventh Circuit Reaffirms Its Position with Broker Liability Claims.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another favorable ruling regarding broker liability for highway accidents.

Background on District Court Case

In the matter of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (“Robinson”) brokered a shipment for transportation to Caribe Transport II, LLC (“Caribe”). No. 24-1192, 2025 WL 21386, *1 (7th Cir. 2025). Yosniel Varela-Mojena (‘Mojena”), Caribe’s employee, transported the load. Id. While in transit, Mojena veered off the road and struck Shawn Montgomery’s vehicle, which was parked on the shoulder of an Illinois Highway. Id. Mr. Montgomery sustained serious injuries as a result of the collision. Id.

Mr. Montgomery sued Robinson and alleged that Robinson negligently hired Mojena and Caribe and was vicariously liable for their torts. Id. The Southern District of Illinois granted judgment on both claims in favor of Robinson. Id. First, it found Mojena and Caribe were Robinson’s independent contractors, not its agents. Id. Thus, it concluded that Robinson was not vicariously liable. Id. Second, the Southern District of Illinois relied on Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc., and determined that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (“FAAAA”) preemption provision barred Mr. Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim against Robinson. Id.

Seventh Circuit Affirms:

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination. Id. at *2-4. Mr. Montgomery first argued that Caribe’s relationship with Robinson supported finding an agency relationship. Id. at *2. Under Illinois law (as in most jurisdictions), a principal is vicariously liable only for the conduct of its agent, not for the conduct of an independent contractor. Id. Here, the Seventh Circuit found that there was no issue of material fact; the carrier and its driver were not the agents of Robinson. Id. *2-3. Specifically, the Court found that Robinson did not do any of the following factors that generally form an agency relationship:

  • provide or maintain Caribe’s equipment;
  • choose the driver, route, hours of service, or locations of rest and fuel stops, including the subject load;
  • pay drivers or even Caribe directly for the loads;
  • withhold taxes or benefits from these payments;
  • make hiring or firing decisions for Caribe; or
  • provide Caribe’s drivers with any training, instruction manuals, or uniforms.

Id. at *4. Rather, the evidence demonstrated Robinson lacked control over Caribe. Id. First, Mojena drove under Caribe’s insurance at all times and both parties maintained the power to terminate the relationship at any time. Id. Second, Robinson’s requirement that Caribe provide it with information about the driver hauling a load, their hours of service, and the locations of the trucks demonstrated control on Caribe’s behalf, not Robinson’s. Id. at *3. Third, Robinson’s requirement that Mojena download MacroPoint – a passive tracking technology that does not have two-way communication – on his cellphone was not evidence of Robinson dictating delivery of the shipment. Id. at *2. Rather, the Court opined that “a broker does not dictate how a driver performs a delivery when it uses software applications or check-in calls to monitor its status.” Id. Finally, Robinson and Caribe adhered to their Broker/Carrier Agreement, which specified that Caribe was to be Robinson’s independent contractor, not its agent. Id. As such, the Seventh Circuit determined that the evidence demonstrated Caribe and Mojena were Robinson’s independent contractors, not agents. Id. at *4. Thus, the district court did not err in its summary judgment determination. Id.

Second, Mr. Montgomery conceded that Ye foreclosed his negligent hiring claims. Id. at *2. Yet, he asked the court to reconsider and overrule Ye. Id. The Seventh Circuit declined any opportunity to do so. Id. at *4. As a result, Ye remains good law, and the Court affirmed the district court’s determination as to Mr. Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim. Id. at *3.

Broker Takeaways

The Seventh Circuit reinforces its promise to continue to bar state law claims against brokers for negligent hiring of motor carriers and their drivers. For those keeping track, the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have both found in favor of federal preemption against state law tort claims, while the Ninth Circuit has ruled against it. The remaining circuits have yet to make any determinations; however, district courts are issuing opinions on an almost weekly basis.

The Scopelitis Law Firm’s Highway Accident, Wrongful Death & Personal Injury Defense and Brokerage & Non-Asset Logistics groups are actively tracking all opinions within this realm. Attorneys within the groups are readily available to assist with any brokerage liability questions in this everchanging landscape.

News from Scopelitis is intended as a report to our clients and friends on developments affecting the transportation industry. The published material does not constitute an exhaustive legal study and should not be regarded or relied upon as individual legal advice or opinion.