Does the FAAAA Preempt State Negligence Claims Against Freight Brokers?
"In issuing what is apparently the first New Jersey court decision on this issue, the Superior Court" has ruled whether the FAAAA preempts state negligence claims. Tyler J. Hall, of RAM Law, explains the decision.
November 14, 2024 at 12:00 PM
7 minute read
Attorneys representing freight brokers in personal injury lawsuits like to tell plaintiffs’ attorneys in those lawsuits that their clients’ claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 14501 (FAAAA). Going one step further, attorneys for brokers often urge plaintiffs’ attorneys to drop their clients’ negligence claims or voluntarily dismiss them if they’re already in suit. After a perfunctory research process, some plaintiffs’ attorneys may honor those requests.
They shouldn’t any longer.
Earlier this year, the New Jersey Superior Court in Mercer County held in Estate of Russo v. EPES Logistics, No. MER-L-170-21, which was consolidated with Elsowiny v. EPES Logistics, No. MER-L-1549-21—a case in which my law firm represented the plaintiff—that the FAAAA did not preempt state negligence claims against freight brokers. In issuing what is apparently the first New Jersey court decision on this issue, the Superior Court has confirmed that the state’s courthouse doors remain open for individuals injured by freight brokers’ negligence.
|
An FAAAA Primer
The FAAAA, enacted in 1994, was intended to create an efficient, competitive, and deregulated national transportation industry. Section 14501(c)(1) prevents states, political subdivisions, or political authorities of two or more states from enacting any “law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.”
Section 14501(c)(2)(A) carves out an exception to 14501(c)(1). Known as the “safety exception,” (c)(2)(A) states that (c)(1) “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” The statute defines a “motor vehicle” as a “vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used on a highway in transportation, or a combination determined by the Secretary ...” The U.S. Supreme Court held in Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Service, 536 U.S. 424 (2002), that “Congress’ clear purpose in Section 14501(c)(2)(A) is to ensure that its preemption of states’ economic authority over motor carriers of property, Section 14501(c)(1), ‘not restrict’ the preexisting and traditional state police power over safety.”
|
The Superior Court Holds the FAAAA Does Not Preempt Negligence Claims Against Freight Brokers
Estate of Russo v. EPES Logistics and Elsowiny v. EPES Logistics arose from a fatal three-vehicle collision on Route 130 in Robbinsville, New Jersey, on Oct. 29, 2020. The collision involved a tractor trailer owned by Contractual Carriers, a Chevy Camaro driven by our client Aiman Elsowiny, and a box truck operated by the decedent Francesco Russo. EPES Logistics is a commercial freight broker that arranged the shipment of goods carried by Contractual Carriers’ tractor trailer, and was named as a defendant in the subsequent legal proceedings initiated by Russo’s widow and Elsowiny.
In denying EPES Logistics’ motion to dismiss, the Superior Court in an oral decision held that the FAAAA did not preempt the plaintiffs’ state law claims. Noting that neither the New Jersey Supreme Court, the New Jersey Appellate Division, nor the Third Circuit had ruled on this issue, Judge Douglas H. Hurd relied on federal law for guidance.
After acknowledging the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance from Columbus that I excerpted above, the court looked to several federal decisions, notably Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, 976 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2020), Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, 74 F.4th 453 (7th Cir. 2023), and Mann v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Nos. 7:16-cv-00102, 7:16-cv-00104, 7:16-cv-00140 (W.D. Va. 2017).
In Miller, the Ninth Circuit held the FAAAA’s safety exception permitted state law negligence claims against freight brokers. Specifically, the court held “[t]here is no question that common-law claims ... are within the scope of the preemption clause,” and that “‘the safety regulatory authority of a state’ encompasses common-law tort claims.”
In Ye, the Seventh Circuit held the safety exception did not prohibit the preemption of a negligent hiring claim against a freight broker under the FAAAA. The court rested its holding on its conclusion that “the exception requires a direct link between a state’s law and motor vehicle safety.” The court saw “no such direct link between negligent hiring claims against brokers and motor vehicle safety.”
In Mann, the court there concluded that the plaintiffs’ negligent hiring claims were not preempted. First, the court held a personal injury suit for negligent hiring “does not have anything more than a ‘tenuous, remote, or peripheral’ connection to the ‘price, route, or service’” of a freight broker. Second, the court held that if the negligent hiring claim sufficiently impacted the price, route, or service of a broker, it would not be preempted because it would fall within the safety exception.
After reviewing the above cases and others regarding FAAAA preemption in connection with negligence claims against freight brokers, the Superior Court held the plaintiffs’ claims fell within the safety exception’s framework that section 14501(c)(1)’s prohibition “not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.”
Specifically, the court held that the safety exception’s language recognizes that a state’s regulatory authority includes common-law tort claims because they are a critical component of a state’s traditional ability to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Additionally, the court held that regarding Section (c)(2)(A)’s language of “with respect to motor vehicles”—which the court interpreted as “concerning motor vehicles”—a claim seeking damages for negligently operating a vehicle is a claim “with respect to” or “concerning” the safe operation of motor vehicles.
|
NJ Case Law Favors Denying the FAAAA’s Preemption of Common-Law Negligence Claims
As evidenced by the decisions Hurd cited in Russo/Elsowiny, the federal case law on FAAAA preemption and its safety exception is inconsistent. There’s a circuit split on this issue, though the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t appear to be motivated to resolve it. This past January, the Supreme Court refused to take up a petition of certiorari for the Seventh Circuit’s Ye v. GlobalTranz Enterprises decision. That would have provided an opportunity to resolve the split, but that wasn’t the Supreme Court’s first opportunity to decide this issue. In July 2022, it refused to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Miller v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide.
In addition, several state courts have issued FAAAA preemption and safety exception decisions. The majority of these decisions have denied preemption.
Hurd’s decision in Russo/Elsowiny isn’t, of course, binding on other New Jersey courts. But his decision is, to our knowledge, the first New Jersey court decision to rule on FAAAA preemption regarding common-law negligence claims against freight brokers, and the decision favors denying preemption.
Thus, the next time a plaintiff’s attorney sends a demand to a freight broker’s counsel regarding a negligence claim, the attorney should not take defense counsel’s bait about dropping their client’s claim. In fact, if a plaintiff's attorney puts their client’s claim in suit, there’s a good chance it will survive a motion to dismiss and perhaps a motion for summary judgment.
Thanks to the Russo/Elsowiny decision, for the moment, the days of New Jersey plaintiffs’ attorneys having no persuasive New Jersey case law to rely on when countering freight brokers’ counsel’s attempts to get them to drop their clients’ negligence claims are over.
Tyler J. Hall, an attorney at RAM Law in Somerville, represents injury victims and their families in truck and bus crash litigation. He has been certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney and is Board Certified in Truck Accident Law by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. He can be reached at [email protected].
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
Hit by Mail Truck: Man Agrees to $1.85M Settlement for Spinal Injuries
Construction Worker Hit by Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 2OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 34th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 4Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 5How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250