The Bill That Never Gets Paid

Every heavy duty recovery operator in the country has the same set of files in the back office. A wreck on the interstate at 2 a.m. State troopers call dispatch. The operator rolls a rotator and two flatbeds. They work the scene for nine hours, generate an itemized incident-management invoice for $42,000, store the wrecked tractor and trailer, and send the file to collections.

The file never closes. The carrier was a single-truck LLC with the federal-minimum 49 C.F.R. § 387.9 coverage on paper. The liability insurer denies the claim. The application misrepresented the operation. The policy lapsed for nonpayment. The driver behind the wheel was not the named driver on the policy. An exclusion applies. Pick a reason; recovery operators have seen all of them. Thirty days later, the carrier files Chapter 7. Sixty days after that, the same DOT number is back on the road under a slightly different LLC name with the same equipment and the same drivers. The broker who hired the carrier in the first place has moved on to the next load.

The recovery operator eats the $42,000.

That is the towing industry’s structural exposure to chameleon carriers and undercapitalized motor carriers. It is invisible to the freight press because freight publications cover the broker, the carrier, and the cargo owner. It is the operating reality for every heavy-recovery firm in America.

Today, in a 9-0 ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the United States Supreme Court took down the federal preemption shield that prevented the next legal question from even being asked: can the recovery operator, or the storage facility, sue the broker who put that judgment-proof carrier on the road in the first place?

The opinion does not answer that question. The freight industry is reading the case for what it does answer, which is bodily-injury liability for brokers. But the door for the economic-harm question is now open. Whether the tow industry walks through it depends on the bar pressing the theory in the right cases over the next several years.

This article is the framework for that conversation.

• • •

The Kavanaugh Sentence That Defines the Field of Play

Set this aside before you read the rest. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a concurrence that contains the most important sentence the Court issued today. It will define the field of play for both bodily-injury and economic-harm claims against brokers.

“The Court’s decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff’s counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies.” — Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring (joined by Justice Alito)

Plaintiff’s lead counsel was Paul D. Clement, the former United States Solicitor General. At oral argument Clement told the Justices that “the broker is not going to have a problem if it’s asking the hard questions of the carrier.” Kavanaugh quoted those concessions directly in his concurrence.

Today’s holding opens the courthouse door. It does not pre-decide who wins once the door is open. The fight ahead is about what counts as reasonable broker vetting and how far the duty extends. Hold that thought.

What the Court Actually Held

Shawn Montgomery was driving a tractor-trailer through Illinois when he pulled over to the shoulder. While he was stopped, a Mack truck driven by Yosniel Varela-Mojena veered off course and struck him. Montgomery’s leg was amputated. Varela-Mojena was hauling plastic pots for Caribe Transport II, LLC, a motor carrier with a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration under 49 C.F.R. Part 385. Caribe Transport had been hired for the load by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., one of the country’s largest freight brokers.

Montgomery sued the broker on a state law negligent hiring theory: that C.H. Robinson knew or should have known from the public safety rating that hiring Caribe Transport was reasonably likely to cause crashes that would injure others. The Seventh Circuit held the claim was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which deregulated trucking in 1994. The Supreme Court reversed.

The holding fits in one sentence:

“A claim that one company negligently hired another to transport goods is not preempted by the FAAAA because States retain authority to regulate safety ‘with respect to motor vehicles’ under the Act.”

The Court abrogated Ye v. Global-Tranz Enterprises (7th Cir. 2023) and Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger (11th Cir. 2023), the two leading broker-favorable rulings.

The legal architecture is simple. The FAAAA’s preemption provision at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) sweeps broadly: it preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service” of a motor carrier or broker. But the safety exception at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A) carves out “the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” The FAAAA defines “motor vehicle” expansively at 49 U.S.C. § 13102(16) to mean any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer used on a highway in transportation.

Barrett applied a dictionary reading the Court has used before, in Dan’s City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, 569 U.S. 251 (2013): “with respect to” means “concerns” or “regards.” A claim is “with respect to motor vehicles” if it “concerns” the vehicles used in transportation.

The application:

“Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore ‘concerns’ motor vehicles, most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods.”

Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim falls within the safety exception. The FAAAA does not preempt it. The case goes back for trial.

What the Freight Press Will Tell You Tomorrow

Freight publications will run the bodily-injury angle for the next two weeks. C.H. Robinson can be sued. Brokers face new exposure when the carriers they hire crash and hurt people. Insurance markets will adjust. The Transportation Intermediaries Association will lobby Congress for a fix. Brokers who can document a real carrier-vetting process will defend successfully. Brokers who cannot will pay.

All of that is correct. None of it is the question that matters most to a heavy-recovery operator with a stack of unpaid wreck-cleanup invoices.

The question that matters is this: when the broker selects a carrier whose business model depends on operating cheaper than reasonable safety and capitalization would allow, and that carrier predictably crashes and predictably can’t pay the recovery operators who clean up the wreck, is the broker now exposed for the economic harm the recovery operator absorbs?

The answer is not in the Montgomery opinion. But the foundation for the answer is.

The Legal Architecture for the Towing Industry Claim

There are three layers. Walk them in order.

Layer one: federal preemption is gone for the negligent hiring claim against the broker.

This is what Montgomery did. State-law negligent hiring claims against brokers fall within the FAAAA’s safety exception. The holding is not limited to bodily-injury claims. It is a holding about preemption of state law negligent hiring claims against brokers generally. Whatever theory of state law liability runs against the broker, the FAAAA no longer wipes it out at the threshold. The federal door is open.

Layer two: in most states, the carrier’s liability for the recovery bill is statutory, not contractual.

This is the layer most coverage of Montgomery will miss entirely. Texas is the cleanest example.

When a Texas peace officer removes (or orders the removal of) a vehicle from the highway under Texas Transportation Code § 545.305, the statute itself answers who pays:

“The owner of a vehicle that is removed or stored under this section is liable for all reasonable towing and storage fees incurred.”

When a law enforcement agency, fire department, or transit authority removes personal property (a vehicle, spilled cargo, hazardous material, or an unattended manufactured home) from the roadway because it blocks traffic or endangers public safety under Texas Transportation Code § 545.3051, the statute reaches further:

“The owner and any carrier of personal property removed under this section shall reimburse the authority, fire department, or law enforcement agency for any reasonable cost of removal and disposition.”

Read those two provisions together. The vehicle owner is liable for the recovery bill by statute. The carrier of the property removed is liable for the cost of removal by statute. No contract is required. No tow agreement gets signed at 2 a.m. on the shoulder of the interstate. The recovery operator shows up because dispatch ordered them to under the statutory framework, performs the work the statute treats as their professional obligation, and the same statute identifies who owes the bill.

Most states have parallel frameworks. The chapter numbers, the agencies, and the precise statutory language differ. The structure does not: when police-ordered or authority-ordered removal happens, the bill belongs to the vehicle owner and (in the cargo and hazmat scenarios) the carrier, by operation of state law. Operators outside Texas should pull their own state’s version of the police-removal-liability statute and read it before assuming the contract-based framing of routine consensual towing applies.

This is the part that demolishes the framing every defense lawyer is going to try to import from outside this context. The towing industry claim against a wrecked carrier is not a stranger trying to recast economic harm as tort where contract should govern. There is no contract to govern. State law has already decided who owes the bill. The carrier owes it by statute. The vehicle owner owes it by statute. The recovery operator’s right to be paid does not depend on a tort-versus-contract boundary because the statute has already drawn the line.

Layer three: state common-law negligent hiring is the bridge to the broker.

Every state recognizes some version of negligent hiring liability in line with the duty captured at Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411 (1964): an employer who hires a contractor for dangerous work has a duty to use reasonable care in selecting a competent and careful contractor. The contours vary by jurisdiction. The duty itself is everywhere. After today, federal preemption no longer prevents that duty from being applied to a freight broker’s carrier-selection decisions.

Apply the duty to the broker who hires the cheapest, least-vetted carrier on the market. The broker has access to the carrier’s FMCSA SAFER profile, public insurance filings, BASIC scores, out-of-service history, and chameleon indicators (rapid serial USDOT registrations, shared garaging addresses, shared officers, identical equipment under sequential authorities). The broker either checks that information and proceeds or fails to check it. Either way, the broker selects the carrier.

When that carrier crashes (statistically near-certain at scale for an unsafe carrier), state law makes the carrier liable for the cost of recovery and removal. When the carrier is a chameleon LLC, undercapitalized to the point of judgment-proof, or running a liability policy the insurer will deny coverage on at the first opportunity, the recovery operator and the storage facility eat the bill. That harm is a foreseeable consequence of the broker’s carrier-selection decision. The recovery operator and the storage facility are foreseeable, identifiable members of the class harmed by the broker’s breach of the duty of reasonable care in selecting a carrier whose statutory obligations the broker had reason to know would not be paid.

That is the negligent hiring theory that Montgomery’s removal of FAAAA preemption now puts in play. Whether state appellate courts will recognize it as a viable cause of action against the broker for these specific economic damages is a question that will be litigated in the trial dockets over the next several years. The doctrinal foundation exists. The statutory predicate is already on the books. The federal preemption shield is gone.

The fight ahead is over duty, foreseeability, proximate cause, and the standard of broker diligence Justice Kavanaugh signaled in his concurrence. None of those questions were available to be litigated yesterday. All of them are now.

Why the Chameleon Carrier Problem Makes This Worse Than a Routine Negligent-Hiring Case

Chameleon carriers are motor carriers that re-incorporate under new names with new USDOT numbers to escape safety enforcement, accumulated liability, or both. FMCSA has rulemakings, enforcement priorities, and dedicated investigators aimed at chameleon detection. The phenomenon is well documented in federal regulatory filings, federal court opinions, and academic literature.

The chameleon problem matters for the towing industry argument because:

A broker who hires a chameleon (or fails to detect one through publicly available diligence) is making a selection decision the foreseeable consequence of which is that downstream parties, including the police-ordered tow operator who will inevitably be called to clean up the chameleon’s predictable wreck, will not be paid. That is an unusually strong factual matrix for the negligent-selection-of-an-undercapitalized-contractor theory in the jurisdictions where the theory is recognized.

What This Means in Practice for Recovery and Storage Operators

The honest framing is this. Today’s ruling does not put a check in any tow operator’s mailbox. It does open a litigation theory that did not exist yesterday because federal preemption killed it before it could be tested.

What recovery and storage operators should be doing this week:

Preserve every record on every wreck cleanup that went unpaid. Dispatch logs, incident-management itemizations, the police call number, the carrier’s USDOT number at the time of the wreck, the SAFER snapshot at the time of the wreck if you can pull it, the broker name on the bill of lading or rate confirmation if it appears in your file, every collections-attempt record. This is the predicate. Without preservation, the claim never gets evaluated.

Document the chameleon pattern when you see it. If you have performed multiple unpaid recoveries on different USDOT numbers that share an address, share equipment, or share principal officers, that pattern is the evidence that turns a routine collection problem into a viable upstream claim.

Talk to a transportation attorney admitted in your state. The negligent hiring duty and its application to economic damages varies sharply by jurisdiction. Texas, California, and New York will not look identical. Operators with substantial unpaid receivables from carrier insolvencies should get a real evaluation, not assume the answer.

Track the broker on every load you respond to going forward. When you arrive at a wreck, the bill of lading often identifies the broker. Capture that information at the scene. The carrier is the immediate counterparty. The broker is now the upstream defendant.

The Honest Open Questions

This is not a settled doctrine. It is a litigation theory that the plaintiffs’ bar will press over the next several years. The unsettled questions include:

None of those questions have settled answers. All of them are now properly questions to be litigated rather than questions foreclosed at the threshold by federal preemption.

The Line From Columbus, Ohio to Today

The legal architecture of today’s ruling traces directly to a 2002 Supreme Court case about a wrecker company. In Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002), the Court held that the FAAAA’s safety exception preserved state and local police-power authority to regulate the towing industry for safety. Barrett cited Ours Garage by name today for the foundational principle that the safety exception was designed “to ensure that its preemption of States’ economic authority over motor carriers of property [did] not restrict’ the preexisting and traditional state police power over safety.”

The towing industry built that doctrine. For 24 years it has been the framework that allowed states and cities to regulate wrecker services for safety. Today the same doctrine was used to expose every freight broker in America to state law negligent hiring liability.

Whether the doctrine now flows back to the towing industry as a tool for recovering unpaid incident-management, recovery, and storage invoices from brokers who hired the cheapest, least-vetted carriers on the market is the question that should be on every recovery operator’s desk by Monday morning. The answer will not come from the Supreme Court. It will come from the state-court trial dockets where recovery operators and their attorneys press the claim, build the records, and force jurisdictions to decide whether the broker who put the chameleon on the road owes the operator who cleaned up its predictable wreck.

That is the real towing industry consequence of Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, No. 24-1238 (U.S. May 14, 2026). The freight press will not write it. The trade journals will not write it. The structural exposure of the towing industry to chameleon and underinsured carriers has been invisible to everyone who is not paying the bills.

It is not invisible anymore.