Home › Guides

Broker liability after a crash: $604M C.H. Robinson verdict and a Michigan bill on unfit drivers

Published 2026-11-07 · facts checked 2026-11-07

A Dallas County jury found C.H. Robinson 23% responsible for a 2021 crash that killed three people, and the court confirmed the $604 million verdict in October [1]. A Michigan bill would also let people sue brokers who hire or keep a driver they knew, or should have known, was unfit [2].

What happened

• On May 14 the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II that a state negligent-hiring claim against a broker falls under the safety exception of the FAAAA, so preemption does not bar these suits [1].
• In a concurrence joined by Justice Alito, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that brokers "should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably" [1].
• In July a Dallas County jury returned a $604 million verdict in Lipe v. Lupus Superior. It found C.H. Robinson 23% responsible for a 2021 Mississippi crash that killed three people, and found the driver was effectively a C.H. Robinson employee. The court confirmed the verdict in October; Overdrive reported that interest brings it to about $711 million. C.H. Robinson says it will appeal [1].
• Michigan HB6286 (Rep. Brad Paquette), now in the House Judiciary Committee, would add brokers to the companies that can be sued after a truck crash if they hire or keep a driver they knew, or should have known, was unfit [2].
• The bill uses a "particular unfitness" standard: a known, serious safety problem that directly connects to the crash. Land Line notes that "a bad driving record alone would not automatically make a broker responsible" [2].

What this means for a small broker

The practical question in these cases is what you knew, or should have known, when you tendered the load, and whether you can show it. "Acted reasonably" is the defense the Kavanaugh concurrence points to [1]. That is a record-keeping problem as much as a vetting one.

• Write down what you checked and when: authority status, insurance confirmation, safety data, and who you spoke to. A dated note beats a memory two years later.
• Treat a known serious problem as a stop: if something in the carrier's record or the driver's history is a clear safety issue, the "should have known" argument is hard to make go away.
• Keep the driver identity trail: the name and phone number the carrier gave you for each load, and who actually showed up at pickup.
• Do not assume a rate confirmation clause solves it: the jury in the Dallas case treated the driver as effectively a broker employee [1]. Ask your lawyer and your contingent cargo and liability insurer how your arrangements look in that light.
• Keep per-load records you can export: stop times and positions from the load itself are evidence of what happened on that load.

None of this is legal advice. The Michigan bill is only a bill, and the article gives no dollar figures or penalties for it [2]; the C.H. Robinson verdict is under appeal [1].

Double brokering

Negligent-selection claims make an unknown driver on your load more expensive. If a carrier hands your freight to a company you never vetted, the first question after a crash can be what you knew about who was driving. The Dallas jury found the driver was effectively a C.H. Robinson employee [1], and the Michigan proposal turns on whether the broker knew or should have known a driver was unfit [2]. Record who you booked and who actually picked up.

FMCSA update

Broker transparency rule still not published: FMCSA sent its supplemental proposal, "Transparency in Broker Transactions," to the White House Office of Management and Budget in August. As of Land Line's October 28 report it had been more than two months, the regulatory agenda target of July had passed, and publication in the Federal Register and the comment period were waiting on OMB sign-off. Current rules already require brokers to keep records of each transaction, which each party can review [3].

The same agenda lists November 2026 targets for a Clearinghouse revisions NPRM, safety fitness procedures NPRM and ELD revisions NPRM; agency timelines often slip [3].

What PingPoint does and doesn't do here

Does: for each load you track, PingPoint keeps arrival and departure times at each stop from geofences computed from the driver's phone position, plus the phone number you entered for the driver. That gives you a per-load record of where that phone was and when. You also get e-mail alerts for running late, 20 minutes without a position, and long dwell.

Doesn't: verify MC/DOT authority, insurance or identity, decide whether a carrier or driver is fit, or reduce your legal liability. It tracks the phone number you entered, not the trailer or the freight, and it is not a substitute for vetting or legal advice.

$0.65 per load · $0.02 per position read over the API · live map and tracking link in the cabinet free · no subscription

Create an account — $10 to start

Related

• Carrier vetting in fall 2026: hijacked carrier identities, a $12M indictment, Motus still unstable
• Double brokering and freight fraud in 2026: bond rule, Motus, authority sales
• Automatic load statuses from geofences

Sources

Every source above was opened and compared with the text on 2026-11-07.

Facts checked 2026-11-07.