Allen Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
976 F.3d 1016 | Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 2020
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A freight broker was sued for negligently selecting an unsafe motor carrier that caused a serious accident. The lower court dismissed the case, saying federal law preempted it. The appeals court reversed, ruling that states can still sue brokers for negligence under safety laws, even though federal law generally limits state regulation of brokers. This matters because it means you can hold brokers and contractors accountable for unsafe hiring decisions.
Key Takeaways
- •You can sue a broker or contractor for negligently selecting an unsafe carrier or subcontractor—federal law doesn't block safety-based negligence claims.
- •The FAAAA preemption rule has a safety exception: states retain full power to regulate motor vehicle and worker safety through common-law tort claims.
- •Document carrier/subcontractor qualifications, safety records, and insurance before hiring—negligent selection is now a viable liability claim against brokers and general contractors.
The safety regulatory authority of a State encompasses common-law tort claims.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue a broker or contractor for hiring an unsafe subcontractor or carrier?
Yes. Even though federal law limits state regulation of brokers, the safety exception allows you to file negligence claims for unsafe hiring decisions. You must show the broker or contractor failed to properly vet the hired party's safety record, qualifications, or insurance before the accident or injury occurred.
Related Cases
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.