Total Quality Logistics (TQL), one of the largest third-party logistics providers (3PLs) in the United States, has secured a significant legal victory in Colorado after a federal judge dismissed the company from a liability lawsuit stemming from a fatal trucking accident.
Judge Nina Wang granted TQL’s request to be removed from the federal case on Tuesday, providing the brokerage with relief at a time when the logistics industry is closely watching how broker liability could evolve in the wake of the Montgomery decision.
The lawsuit was brought by Deann Miller following the death of her husband, Scott Miller, who was driving on U.S. 285 in Colorado in June 2024 when steel beams fell from a truck and struck the pickup he was driving. Miller was killed in the crash.
Judge Wang noted that it remained “unclear” who Ignacio Cruz-Mendoza was driving for when the steel fell from his vehicle. However, she said he “may have been delivering the cargo on behalf of Monique Trucking.”
A long list of defendants
The lawsuit eventually expanded to include several companies connected to the shipment.
Deann Miller initially filed her complaint in March 2025 against Cruz-Mendoza and Monique Trucking. An amended complaint later added TQL, Intsel Steel West LLC, the customer expected to receive the shipment, and Triple-S Steel Holdings, another customer involved in the steel transaction.
Searing Industries was also named because it was the company that actually loaded and delivered the steel onto the truck involved in the fatal accident.
Judge Wang granted motions from TQL, Intsel and Triple-S Steel seeking dismissal from the case. The dismissals, however, were issued without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff retains the ability to bring the claims again using a different legal theory.
When the lawsuit was initially filed, TQL relied on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A) in arguing that federal law protected the company against liability and negligence claims.
The F4A generally prevents states from adopting measures affecting a company’s “price, route or service.” TQL had also argued that the law’s so-called safety exception, which can allow certain claims against carriers involved in accidents, should not be extended to brokers.
That legal position changed following the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II. Judge Wang noted in a footnote that TQL withdrew its F4A defense after the Montgomery decision.
Judge rejects broad liability arguments
Judge Wang’s separate rulings involving TQL and, jointly, Triple-S and Intsel made clear that the plaintiff’s allegations did not provide sufficient factual grounds for the claims being pursued.
At several points, the judge described the plaintiff’s arguments as “vague” and found that the complaint had “not adequately alleged facts” necessary to support the claims.
Miller argued that the defendants could be held vicariously liable for the negligence, carelessness or recklessness of Cruz-Mendoza, the driver of the truck carrying the steel.
Judge Wang acknowledged that Miller had “clearly averred” that such conduct could form the basis of vicarious liability. However, TQL maintained that there was no legal foundation showing that it employed Cruz-Mendoza or that a principal-agent relationship existed between TQL and the driver.
The plaintiff sought to establish vicarious liability against TQL. But after rejecting similar arguments against the companies that purchased the steel, Judge Wang also dismissed the vicarious-liability claim against TQL.
Miller separately alleged that TQL had negligently hired the driver.
Again, Judge Wang found the allegations insufficient. The complaint, she said, did not provide facts indicating that TQL had hired Cruz-Mendoza either as an employee or as an independent contractor. It also failed to establish a principal-agent relationship between TQL and Monique Trucking, instead relying largely on broad references to the “defendants” collectively.
Claims involving an alleged joint venture or joint enterprise between the defendants were also dismissed against TQL, Intsel and Triple-S Steel. Those dismissals were likewise issued without prejudice.
C.H. Robinson weighs in on the post-Montgomery environment
The broader question of broker liability following the Montgomery ruling, as well as the potential exposure of brokers to nuclear verdicts without F4A protection, has also emerged in discussions with investors.
C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW) addressed the issue twice during investor conferences over the past week.
The company’s comments at conferences hosted by Citi and Jefferies & Co. conveyed a broadly consistent message. C.H. Robinson said insurance costs do not represent a major component of its budget, even as brokers face greater liability risks following Montgomery.
That exposure includes the Lipe v. Lupus Superior case, in which C.H. Robinson faces a potential judgment reaching hundreds of millions of dollars. CFO Damon Lee described such cases as an “anomaly” during the Jefferies conference.
“We certainly don’t believe the earnings trajectory that we’ve been on, the outperformance that we’ve been on in any way is going to be derailed by insurance,” Lee said.
At the same time, he warned that the environment could be considerably more difficult for smaller players in the brokerage market.
“We believe the average small and medium-sized broker is going to have a very difficult time surviving in the post Montgomery, post Lipe world,” Lee said.
TQL had not responded to an email seeking comment by the time of publication.
