3PL victory: TQL tossed as defendant in Colorado liability trial

Judge Wang said it was “unclear” who Ignacio Cruz-Mendoza was driving for when the metal on his truck fell off his vehicle, but that he “may have been delivering the cargo on behalf of Monique Trucking.”

Lots of defendants

Deann Miller sued pretty much everybody in the supply chain. The original complaint from March 2025 only had the driver and Monique as defendants. But an amended complaint brought in TQL, Intsel Steel West LLC (which was the customer that was supposed to receive the shipment), and Triple-S Steel Holdings, which also was a customer for the steel. It also brought in a company called Searing Industries, which actually delivered the steel on to the truck involved in the fatal crash. 

Judge Wang granted the request of TQL, Intsel and Triple-S Steel to have them tossed out as defendants. However, the dismissals were without prejudice, so the plaintiff can refile with a different legal approach.

Not surprisingly, when the lawsuit was first filed, TQL in its response cited the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A) as shielding it from charges of liability or negligence. F4A held that states could not take action that might impact a “price, route or service.” TQL also argued that the so-called “safety exception” that did open the door to lawsuits against, for example, a carrier involved in a crash, could not be extended to a broker. 

That defense ended with the Supreme Court unanimous decision in the case of Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II. The judge’s decision in a footnote acknowledges that TQL withdrew the F4A defense after Montgomery.

Judge is not ambigous

The judge’s separate rulings for TQL and (jointly) Triple-S and Intsel left little doubt where she stood on the issue, at times calling the plaintiffs’ arguments “vague” and having “not adequately alleged facts” supporting her claims.

Judge Wang said Miller “clearly averred that the negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of defendants, as being vicariously liable for the actions of (Cruz-Mendoza, the driver of the truck carrying the steel), consisted of various actions or omissions.”

But TQL argued that there was no legal basis to “establish…that TQL employed Mr. Cruz-Mendoza or that (they) otherwise had a principal-agent relationship.”

The plaintiff was seeking to establish vicarious liability that could be applied to TQL in her arguments. But having tossed out that argument against the steel customers, Judge Wang dismissed it against TQL as well.

Miller also alleged a negligent hiring claim against TQL. But Judge Wang said the plaintiff “does not allege any facts suggesting that TQL hired Mr. Cruz-Mendoza as an employee or independent contractor or had any sort of principal-agent relationship with Monique Trucking, instead relying exclusively on broad references to ‘defendants’ generally.”

Charges of a joint venture or joint enterprise among the defendants also were thrown out for TQL, Intsel and Triple-S, all without prejudice.

C.H. Robinson speaks again

The issue of broker liability post-Montgomery, along with the prospect of brokers facing nuclear verdicts without the possibility of F4A protection, came up twice this past week for C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW) at investor conferences.

An email sent to TQL had not been responded to by publication time.

Transcripts of the remarks at those conferences–one at Citi and the other at Jefferies & Co.–reveal a consistent message: insurance costs are not a major budget item at C.H. Robinson, and even with the Lipe vs. Lupus Superior nuclear verdict in which C.H. Robinson on the surface faces a charge of  hundreds of millions of dollars, such cases are an “anomaly,” according to CFO Damon Lee at 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.

But he added “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.”

More articles by John Kingston

Comments close on EPA’s DEF rule; which way will it go?

2 key trucking groups in filing raise alarm on Penske decision fallout

TQL case on broker transparency heads to oral arguments