SCOTUS Eliminates FAAAA Preemption Shield for Freight Brokers
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, 9-0, with Justice Barrett writing for the Court. Plaintiff Shawn Montgomery lost part of his leg when a truck dispatched by broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide struck his parked tractor-trailer. The question before the Court was whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempted state negligent-carrier-selection claims against freight brokers.
The Court held that the FAAAA's safety exception at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A) saves those claims. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Alito, concurred separately, signaling a narrower reading of that exception than the majority's language might otherwise support. The practical effect: freight brokers now owe the same ordinary reasonable-care duty as every other industry when selecting carriers, applicable in all 50 states from the date of decision.
For plaintiff counsel, this ruling reopens a defendant category that had been largely foreclosed through preemption motions. C.H. Robinson had argued that FAAAA's 'related to a price, route, or service' language swept in any state tort duty touching carrier selection. The Court rejected that argument. Brokers vet carriers, collect placement fees, and control dispatch; each of those functions now carries independent tort exposure.
The Kavanaugh-Alito concurrence warrants close reading. Defense teams will continue pressing preemption arguments in cases where the broker's role in any specific carrier safety decision is attenuated. Plaintiff firms carrying trucking files should audit every pending freight-broker defendant and reassess negligent-selection pleadings under the post-Montgomery standard.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II eliminates FAAAA preemption as a freight-broker defense to negligent-carrier-selection claims in all 50 states, effective immediately.
Hair Relaxer MDL-3060: Rowland Takes Direct Control of Bellwether Selection
The Hair Relaxer MDL in the Northern District of Illinois reached 11,877 pending cases as of July 1, 2026, a 19 percent increase since January 2025. That caseload makes it the fourth-largest MDL nationally. Judge Mary M. Rowland's April 2026 management order restructured how the docket will reach trial.
Rowland scrapped the party-driven alternating bellwether-pick process and personally selected 32 cases from a 5,230-case eligible pool. To qualify, a case required a uterine, endometrial, or ovarian cancer diagnosis with a complaint served by February 1, 2024. The discovery pool expanded from 16 to 40 cases, designed to yield up to 12 trial-ready files. Case-specific Daubert and summary judgment motions are due November 16, 2026. Bellwether trials are broadly expected in 2027.
Settlement projections among plaintiff leadership range from $150,000 to $750,000 per cancer claim. Revlon's bankruptcy reserve stands at $44 million. Special Master Ellen K. Reisman is overseeing negotiations. Defendants L'Oreal, Revlon, and Softsheen-Carson have signaled case-by-case causation attacks at the November Daubert stage, targeting the NIH Sister Study finding that frequent chemical-relaxer users are 2.55 times more likely to develop uterine cancer.
For medical providers carrying lien-funded treatment in MDL-3060 files, the November 16 Daubert calendar is the fulcrum: a successful general-causation attack could stall or compress per-case values before any bellwether trial. Monitoring Special Master Reisman's public reports is the minimum operational step to anticipate settlement-posture shifts before they surface in filed orders.
With 11,877 cases and a November 2026 Daubert deadline, MDL-3060 is entering its dispositive phase; settlement valuations will sharpen or fracture on that calendar date.
$71.39 Million Maryland Verdict in Apartment-Fire Catastrophic-Injury Case
A Prince George's County Circuit Court jury awarded $71,390,000 to plaintiff Godlove Djapa following catastrophic injuries he sustained jumping from a second-story window during a nighttime fire at the Lilly Garden apartment complex in Lanham, Maryland. The injuries included paralysis from the chest down, permanent brain damage, and loss of earning capacity. The award covered future medical care costs and noneconomic damages.
The case illustrates how premises-liability theories, anchored by comprehensive life-care plans for spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury patients, can generate eight-figure verdicts in Maryland's mid-tier circuit courts. Maryland caps noneconomic damages in personal injury cases at a figure that adjusts annually; the 2026 cap sits near $935,000. That means the noneconomic component of the Djapa award is subject to post-trial statutory reduction regardless of the jury figure, and plaintiff counsel will need to defend economic damages submissions with sufficient specificity to sustain the overall verdict through any cap reduction.
The $71.39 million Djapa verdict confirms that Maryland premises-liability claims with documented spinal cord injury and TBI can sustain eight-figure awards, though noneconomic cap motions will determine the realized payout.
Rideshare Liability Split: $8.5M Arizona Bellwether Versus Florida TNC Immunity
Two rideshare rulings issued in the first half of 2026 point in opposite directions, and together they function as a jurisdictional gate that counsel must evaluate before any rideshare filing.
In Arizona, a Superior Court jury returned an $8.5 million first bellwether verdict in Dean v. Uber Technologies in early 2026. The plaintiff alleged sexual assault by a driver, and the jury rejected Uber's independent-contractor defense under apparent-agency doctrine. The jury found that passengers reasonably believe drivers act as Uber's agents because the company controls fares, routes, and driver-qualification standards. That verdict anchors the Arizona bellwether track and will inform settlement negotiations across the broader MDL-linked claim pool.
Florida moved the other way. On May 13, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld broad immunity for rideshare TNCs under Florida Statute § 627.748(18), enacted through HB 1352 in 2020. Writing for the panel, Judge Jonathan Lott held the statute sweeps in 'practically any claim' for passenger injuries during logged-on rides where the TNC maintained background checks and the required insurance coverage. The ruling forecloses most direct-negligence theories against Uber and Lyft in Florida under the existing statutory text.
Florida's immunity is a legislative construct, not a common-law development. Plaintiff firms with Florida rideshare cases should analyze claims arising outside the logged-on window, assess federal theories, and track any legislative challenge to § 627.748(18).
Dean v. Uber ($8.5M, Arizona) and the Florida 4th DCA ruling establish a binary jurisdictional divide on rideshare liability; the state of filing now controls plaintiff exposure more than the underlying facts.
Oregon Reaffirms UIM Stacking, Rejects Below-Statute Carrier Exclusions
In Rogers v. Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, decided May 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that Farmers could not deny UIM benefits under a second policy by invoking an exclusion less favorable to the insured than Oregon's UIM minimum-coverage statute requires. The court reaffirmed that UIM coverage follows the person, enabling stacking across multiple policies in multi-vehicle households.
For Oregon plaintiff auto practices, Rogers expands insurer exposure wherever the injured person holds policies on more than one vehicle. Carriers had argued that their second-policy exclusionary language independently barred the stacking claim. The court restored the statutory floor as the operative ceiling on exclusions, a holding that applies across any Farmers policy structured the same way and, by extension, to carriers using equivalent limiting language.
Rogers v. Farmers Insurance reaffirms that Oregon UIM exclusions cannot undercut the statutory minimum, creating stacking opportunities for plaintiff counsel in any multi-policy household.
Operations: Lien Treatment Timing in Active Mass-Tort Global Funds
Hernia Mesh MDL-2846 in the Southern District of Ohio carries more than 23,382 pending cases. Becton Dickinson's global settlement framework, announced in 2024 and covering roughly 38,000 claims through a tiered points-based program described as being in the 'billion-dollar range,' has settlement administration continuing through mid-2026 under Special Master oversight. This docket is the field reference for how lien-funded treatment claims flow through a mass-tort global fund.
In MDL-2846, providers who registered liens before the global framework was announced have faced pro-rata reduction negotiations with the Special Master rather than full-lien satisfaction. For providers currently extending lien-funded treatment to Hair Relaxer MDL-3060 clients, early lien registration and consistent monitoring of Special Master Reisman's public reports is the minimum operational baseline.
The $44 million Revlon bankruptcy reserve signals constrained per-defendant payout capacity in MDL-3060. Providers treating uterine-cancer patients should verify which defendant's carrier aligns with their client's exposure before extending additional treatment credit. With the Hernia Mesh fund at mid-2026 administration and Hair Relaxer trials not expected before 2027, the unanswered question for providers in both dockets is how many months of carrying costs the lien position can absorb before any bellwether verdict forces settlement-range clarity.
Mass-tort global funds in MDL-2846 and MDL-3060 are paying on different timelines; providers should verify lien-registration priority and defendant-specific reserve levels before extending additional treatment credit in either docket.