Opponent in the securities broker liability case before the Supreme Court urges for a period of reflection and consideration, suggesting the ruling be left to 'simmer'.
The Supreme Court of the United States has scheduled a judicial conference for September 29, where it will consider the issue of broker liability in the transportation industry. Two significant cases, TQL vs. an unspecified party and Montgomery vs. Caribe II, have been placed on the agenda.
In the TQL case, Transportation Quality Logistics (TQL) and the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court, arguing for the review of a Sixth Circuit appellate decision that overturned TQL's earlier victory at the district court level. The Cox filing, representing TQL, does not explicitly state whether it supports or opposes the brokerage community's interpretation of the phrase "with respect to motor vehicles."
The Cox attorneys argue that the Sixth Circuit's findings undercut some of the logic in earlier circuit court decisions, such as the Gauthier case and the case of Ye vs. GlobalTranz. These decisions found that broker negligence was barred by the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The Cox filing notes that the Ye decision "relied heavily on the fact that the safety exception does not expressly mention brokers."
The FAAAA targets state actions against transportation that could impact a "price, route or service," but also includes the safety exception, which allows a finding of negligence or liability "with respect to motor vehicles." The Cox filing argues that requiring a regulated entity to directly own or operate motor vehicles would impose an additional limitation beyond what the text of the safety exception requires.
The opposing arguments come from the lawyers representing the estate of Greta Cox, who died in a crash involving a truck hired by TQL. The Cox attorneys do not want the Court to grant certiorari in the case.
In the Montgomery vs. Caribe II case, C.H. Robinson is backing the request for the justices to review the case. The details of this case are not yet publicly available.
The Cox filing references the Miller vs. C.H. Robinson case, which was not reviewed by SCOTUS. The Cox attorneys think it needs more time for the question of whether a broker falls under the definition of "motor vehicles" to resolve itself without SCOTUS involvement. As the Cox filing says, it needs to "percolate."
Companies that have won a court case may seek the involvement of the Supreme Court to obtain a definitive, highest-level legal clarification, which secures legal certainty and can resolve disputes about the ranking of claims or legal questions affecting all creditors. This is seen in the Wirecard case where the insolvency administrator is appealing to the Supreme Court to quickly resolve priority issues in the interest of all creditors.
The Cox filing argues that immunizing motor carriers from liability when their negligent conduct causes physical injury or death would remove incentives for motor carriers to operate safely. However, the Cox attorneys do not express a clear position on whether brokers should be held liable or negligent in the hiring of a carrier that causes bodily harm or death.
The Supreme Court's decision in these cases could have significant implications for the transportation industry, potentially setting a precedent for broker liability and safety regulations.
Read also:
- Li Auto faces scrutiny after crash test involving i8 model and a truck manufacturer sparks controversy
- Construction and renovation projects in Cham county granted €24.8 million focus on energy efficiency
- Threat looms over an ancient rock art site in Australia as the government prolongs the existence of a giant gas facility nearby
- Weekly proceedings in the Federal Diet (Bundestag)
