.

Sixth Circuit Issues Key Ruling on Freight Broker Liability in Trucking Industry

Legal Updates for Trucking & Transportation Liability

July 14, 2025

by Vincent E. Cononico

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a significant ruling for the trucking industry on July 8, 2025. The Court’s ruling in Cox v. Total Quality Logistics, Inc., No. 24-3599 will impact how claims against freight brokers are assessed in the Sixth Circuit, which constitutes Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee.

Many district courts in the Sixth Circuit have held that common law negligent hiring or supervision claims against freight brokers for personal injuries or deaths caused by commercial motor carriers were preempted by the 1994 Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The FAAAA preempts state law claims that relate to the service of any broker with respect to the transportation of property. Those same district courts have also rejected the application of the FAAAA’s safety exception, which provides that state law claims are not preempted if they apply to the "safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”

In the Cox decision, the Sixth Circuit found that the district courts have been wrong about the safety exception and reversed the decision of the lower court, holding that “…where a negligent hiring claim against a broker substantively concerns motor vehicles and motor vehicle safety, that claim is within ‘the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.’” Therefore, in the Sixth Circuit, freight brokers will no longer have the protection of the FAAAA’s preemption provision and state law claims will be allowed to proceed against them.

The Cox decision will not be the final word on this issue. There is a conflict among the federal circuits as to the application of the safety exception, and it is very likely that the issue will be eventually decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.   


 

Legal Update for Trucking & Transportation Liability – July 14,  2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.