Pittsburgh, Pa. (August 21, 2024) - On the heels of a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissing state law negligence claims against a broker based on Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preemption in Farfan v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has now joined the chorus of courts adopting this position by granting a motion to dismiss a broker defendant in a case filed by a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana in September 2021. Jill Bailey v. Progressive Mutual Insurance Company, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 22-5161 (August 16, 2024).
The plaintiff, Jill Bailey, filed suit asserting claims under Louisiana state negligence law for personal injuries suffered in the accident. Bailey's petition alleged that Jose Alvaregna Perez improperly turned and struck the side of her vehicle while driving a truck for his employers and defendants, Mascar Group, LLC and Hector Cordies Torres. The truck was carrying a load for U.S. Foods, Inc., also named as a defendant in the suit. After removal of the action to federal court, the plaintiff joined Direct Connect Logistix, Inc. as a defendant in the second amended complaint, as the broker that hired Mascar to transport the load on behalf of U.S. Foods. The second amended complaint set forth claims against Direct Connect Logistix for negligent hiring of Mr. Perez and Mascar, due to its alleged failure to properly screen them in violation of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations.
Direct Connect Logistix filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the
claims against it are expressly preempted by the FAAAA. The
plaintiff argued in response to the motion to dismiss that her
personal injury claims against Direct Connect Logistix are
sufficiently related to its services as a broker, therefore
triggering the preemption provision, but that her claims are saved
from preemption under the Safety Regulatory Exception, which
prohibits interference with a state's ability to impose
controls or limitations based on safety factors, such as size,
weight, or hazardous nature of cargo. 49 U.S.C. ยง
14501(C)(2)(A).
Direct Connect Logistix asked the Court to look to the recent
opinions in the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, Ye v.
GlobalTranz Enterprises., 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023) and
Aspen Am. Ins. Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., 65 F.4th 1261
(11th Cir. 2023), holding that the plain language of the FAAAA
establishes that the Safety Regulatory Exception is inapplicable to
state law claims of negligent hiring against brokers. The plaintiff
relied solely on the previously-decided Miller v. C.H. Robinson
Worldwide, Inc., 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020), which held the
exception does apply.
Following the lead of the Ye and Aspen Courts, the Bailey Court held that there is clear intent by Congress to use the term "with respect to" motor vehicles in the Safety Regulatory Exception, rather than using the term "relating to" as is used in the FAAAA preemption provision as a whole. According to the Bailey and Ye Courts, the use of this different terminology implies a different scope. Further, the Bailey Court agreed with the Ye Court's holding that the omission of brokers from the Safety Regulatory Exception was intentional, given that broker services are specifically addressed in the preemption provision generally, and on these grounds granted the motion to dismiss.
Takeaway
This decision and its alignment with the progeny of cases in other courts nationwide show courts' continued support for brokers' argument that the FAAAA's safety exception does not apply to negligent hiring claims against freight brokers, even in claims involving bodily injury or death. With this growing list of cases in support, freight brokers should continue to move for dismissal of state law negligence claims as preempted by federal law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
