Montgomery v. Caribe II Transport, a potentially pivotal case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, will ultimately define the beginning and end of liability for the multibillion-dollar freight brokerage industry.
The dispute stems from a Dec. 7, 2017, crash on Interstate 70 in Illinois. Missouri truck driver Shawn Montgomery had pulled his truck onto the shoulder for mechanical repairs when he was struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena, a driver for Indiana-based Caribe Transport II. Montgomery suffered permanent disfigurement and the loss of a leg in the collision.
Montgomery filed a state negligence lawsuit against the driver, the carrier, and C.H. Robinson, the freight broker that coordinated the shipment. He alleged that C.H. Robinson was negligent in hiring an unsafe motor carrier.
It will be an important line in the sand that I think will be washed away by Super Ego, whatever that company actually is and whatever it considers itself to be. At the heart of the Montgomery v. Caribe II Transport dispute is a single question: Can freight brokers be held liable under state laws for accidents involving the motor carriers they hire? C.H. Robinson, the mega-broker embroiled in that case, argues no, they cannot, guided by a few important points:
- Federal preemption: Congress designed federal law to preempt state regulations that affect the “prices, routes, and services” of brokers to ensure a uniform national market.
- Operational reality: Brokers do not own the vehicles, nor do they employ or train the drivers. The company argues that liability should remain with the motor carriers who have direct control over safety on the road. In short: Not our driver, not our truck, not our problem.
- Economic impact: The company warns that a “fragmented system” of state precedents would create “conflicting rules for the same shipment,” ultimately driving up costs for businesses and consumers alike.
SCOTUS, in that case, is simply charged with deciding if a current exemption—the FAAAA’s safety exception (Section 14501(c)(2)(A))—protects state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers from federal preemption. Not if it should or shouldn’t, but if it does.
Last month, a 60 Minutes report put Elmhurst, Illinois-based Super Ego through the wringer with allegations that the carrier/broker/entity is comprised of a network of Chameleon Carriers and that it cheats drivers out of pay and willingly commits hours of service violations.
Super Ego Holding was founded by Serbian entrepreneur Aleksandar Mimic, and he defended his operation to a Serbian news outlet, characterizing the entire ordeal as a “misunderstanding.”
“Super Ego is an equipment leasing company, not a carrier company,” the company said—the same company that was named C.H. Robinson’s 2025 Carrier of the Year in the 1,000+ trucks category. (D’oh!) Super Ego ($18,598.75) was also listed among the 315 trucking companies that owe the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission nearly $5.2 million in unpaid tolls.
This is a misunderstanding like the Battle of Bunker Hill was just horseplay.
“When a carrier’s driver arrives at a Super Ego facility to pick up a truck bearing the Super Ego name, or causes dangerous conditions on the road, that driver works for the carrier and not for Super Ego,” the company’s statement continued. Sound familiar? In short: Not our driver, not our truck, not our problem.
Super Ego also operates a brokerage, sheltered under the same umbrella that C.H. Robinson and every other freight broker is currently clinging to—a safe haven, I believe, will soon be eliminated thanks in large part to Super Ego.
I listened to the oral arguments in the Montgomery case, and the justices asked some very pointed and valid questions, among them: Why does a middleman in this transaction get a free pass if it turns tragic?
Many smart people that I talk to expect SCOTUS to side with C.H. Robinson in the Montgomery case. C.H. Robinson CEO Dave Bozeman said as much in his company’s earnings call last week.
It may or may not be the publicly popular pick, but it’s the most likely outcome. Regardless of how that decision shakes out, Congress is free to pass legislation that changes the game going forward. That felt possible before the 60 Minutes report. It feels almost certain now.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration chief Derek Barrs has already launched an extensive trucking safety crusade, but that one 60 Minutes episode got the attention of Jane and John Q. Public in a way that Montgomery v. Caribe II Transport never would.
In its arguments to SCOTUS, C.H. Robinson noted that brokers don’t have access to the kind of data that would allow them to know, in great detail, a motor carrier’s safety history; all brokers can do is select fleets that are DOT-authorized operators and use supplementary data to inform their decisions. 60 Minutes used supplementary data and analysis from CCJ parent company Fusable in its reporting of Super Ego. We know there’s good data out there, but good data is most impactful when it rises to meet good effort.
In trucking history, I think we’ll look back at the Montgomery case in the same way we view “the shot heard ’round the world”—the first shot of the Revolutionary War, fired on April 19, 1775, at the Old North Bridge in Concord, Mass. It got the ball rolling. But the Super Ego ordeal will be the Battles of Saratoga—pivotal turning points in the war on trucking’s bad actors.
