Sixth Circuit Deepens Circuit Split on FAAAA Preemption of Broker Liability Claims

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found broker liability claims for negligent selection of a motor carrier brought against Total Quality Logistics (“TQL”), a broker, are not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), due to the statute’s exception for a state’s safety regulatory authority with respect to motor vehicles. The decision in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, comes one year after the Eleventh Circuit held a similar claim against the same broker was preempted and  creates an even split on the question of applicability of the “safety exception,” with the Ninth and Sixth Circuits holding such claims are saved from preemption and the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits holding the claims preempted.

The Cox case arose out of a 2019 accident involving motor carrier Gold Transit, Inc. that occurred while Gold Transit was hauling a load tendered by TQL. TQL was sued, alleging it was a broker that was negligent in hiring the motor carrier.

As noted, the Sixth Circuit’s opinion means that four federal Courts of Appeals have addressed preemption of claims against brokers. The first to do so held that such claims were within the bounds of the general preemption clause of the FAAAA, but were ultimately not preempted because of the safety exception to the FAAAA. Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., (9th Cir. 2020). The next two appellate court decisions both found that the claims were within the FAAAA’s preemptive scope, and were not saved from preemption by the safety exception, because claims against brokers are not with respect to motor vehicles. Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger., (11th Cir. 2023) (see also Gauthier v. Hard to Stop LLC, (11th Cir. 2024)); Ye v. Global Tranz Enterprises, Inc. (7th Cir. 2023).

In Cox, the Sixth Circuit agreed that the negligent hiring claims against TQL as a broker fell within the preemptive scope of the FAAAA. However, the court found that the claims were saved from preemption because they fall “within the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles”. On this point, the court demurred as to the question of whether the underlying state law the defendant seeks to preempt (here, state common law) must be directly related to the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to vehicles. Rather, the court found that regardless, there was a direct link because the negligent hiring claim against TQL “substantively concerns motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety”.

While there are no guarantees, the deepened circuit split increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take up the question should TQL decide to request Supreme Court review. There is an already pending request for the Supreme Court to take up the issue from a plaintiff’s appeal of a different case from the Seventh Circuit. The Supreme Court has refused to decide the issue on several prior occasions.

For questions regarding the Cox decision, please contact Nathaniel Saylor or Jay Starrett.