C.H. Robinson responds to Lipe v. Lupus Superior judgment

C.H. Robinson statement

"We strongly disagree with the judgment in Lipe v. Lupus Superior and the misinformation presented at trial, and we remain confident in our appeal. Nothing about our rejection of the judgment diminishes the profound loss suffered by the families in this case. But C.H. Robinson did not cause or contribute to the accident, and accountability must be grounded in the facts and the law.

The carrier had safely delivered nearly 270 loads for our customers and held a Satisfactory FMCSA safety rating both when we selected it and after a federal review of this accident. The carrier is an independent company, and the driver worked for them. C.H. Robinson does not employ drivers.

Safety is core to how we operate and always has been. We go beyond federal requirements and apply multiple layers of safety and risk criteria that we continuously re-evaluate and strengthen.

The extreme nature of this judgment underscores why a clear national standard for what constitutes a safe carrier is needed now. America's freight network should not be governed by safety standards determined after the fact, state by state and courtroom by courtroom.

This legal landscape will continue to push small trucking companies out of the market, increase supply chain costs and drive up prices for everyday Americans. We urge Congress and federal regulators to create a national standard that enhances highway safety, creates consistent accountability and supports the uninterrupted flow of goods across the United States."

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Lipe v. Lupus Superior lawsuit about, and what is the impact of the case?

The impact of Lipe v. Lupus Superior extends to all carriers, freight brokers, and shippers now facing even greater uncertainty about what constitutes safety in trucking. Safer roads require clear standards, consistent enforcement, and accountability across the transportation system. That's why C.H. Robinson continues to support a national carrier-selection safety standard.

This heartbreaking case began in 2021, when a truck for unknown reasons ran into stopped traffic, killing three people and the truck driver. Lipe v. Lupus Superior may be the first lawsuit of its kind to go to trial after the U.S. Supreme Court Montgomery decision, which clarified that not only the driver and trucking company in an accident could be liable, but also the freight broker if they didn't take reasonable care in arranging for the goods to be on the truck. It risks replacing decades of reliance on one nationwide safety standard with subjective, state-by-state jury decisions.

Significantly, the jury in Lipe v. Lupus Superior found C.H. Robinson liable despite choosing a carrier that held the federal government's highest safety rating before and even after a rigorous government assessment following the accident. The jury also mistakenly considered the driver to be a C.H. Robinson employee. C.H. Robinson was not negligent, does not employ or control drivers, and we are appealing the case because of our confidence in the facts and the law.

This lawsuit and its $604 million judgment have implications for:

• Hundreds of thousands of trucking companies: Trucking in the United States employs over 8 million people and is dominated by small independent contractors known as carriers. Nearly 90% of carriers have only five trucks or less. Even if they're safe and reputable, they don't have the resources to fight nuclear verdicts and face rising costs for even the minimal $750,000 insurance the federal government requires, a level that hasn't increased since 1980.
• The 23,000 freight brokers in the United States: Shippers rely on freight brokers because no individual store, factory, or hospital can efficiently identify which of hundreds of thousands of trucking companies has safe, available capacity at the right time and place. Without a consistent national standard for what constitutes a safe trucking company, every freight broker is left navigating different interpretations of carrier safety in different courts and states.
• Every supply chain: Trucks move over 70% of all goods in this country. New research shows that just a few months after the Supreme Court decision, up to 20% of carriers may be excluded from getting work, not because they have a poor safety record but because of uncertainty around what standard they need to meet to be considered safe. When safe carriers are forced out of the market because standards are unclear, capacity tightens, supply-chain costs rise, and goods become more expensive.
• The entire transportation industry: This uncertainty affects every participant in freight transportation, including asset-based trucking companies, brokers, logistics providers, shippers, and insurers. When there is no clear national standard for determining what constitutes a safe carrier, accountability becomes increasingly subjective and inconsistent. That uncertainty creates risk throughout the transportation network and threatens the efficient movement of goods that businesses and consumers rely on every day.

The Montgomery decision did not make freight brokers automatically liable in trucking accidents. It only clarified they could be found negligent if they failed to exercise reasonable care in choosing a carrier. That left open a critical question: What determines whether a carrier is safe? Lipe v. Lupus Superior illustrates why that gap matters. Without a clear national standard that applies wherever a carrier's truck is traveling, carriers, brokers, and shippers are left with a patchwork of standards decided case by case, jury by jury.

As we have been doing for more than 20 years, we are calling for a more effective federal regulatory system, legislation that creates one national carrier-selection safety standard applicable to all, and strong federal enforcement. The stakes are too high for inaction.

What was C.H. Robinson's role in Lipe v. Lupus Superior?

As a third-party logistics provider and freight broker, C.H. Robinson arranges with independent, federally approved trucking companies to make deliveries for our customers. These trucking companies are referred to in the industry as carriers. Similar to a travel agent, C.H. Robinson connects customers with independent carriers that provide transportation.

Lupus Superior, which worked with many brokers and shippers, held a Satisfactory safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration when C.H. Robinson selected it for our customer. That rating is the highest assigned by the FMCSA, and achieving a Satisfactory rating requires a rigorous in-person inspection and safety review. A Satisfactory rating signifies that the carrier had safety controls in place and that these were properly functioning to comply with federal safety requirements. Lupus Superior had held this rating since 2014, and the FMCSA reaffirmed its Satisfactory rating before and after the accident.

Claims that C.H. Robinson ignored alerts or data it received predicting that Lupus Superior would get in an accident are false. What is true is that Lupus Superior had safely completed nearly 270 loads for C.H. Robinson customers, and before the shipment the FMCSA had audited and renewed the carrier's Satisfactory rating.

Claims that the driver told C.H. Robinson he was sick, that we allowed him to continue driving or that we didn't reschedule the load are also false. What is true is that the driver worked for Lupus Superior, he did not communicate with C.H. Robinson, and we did not supervise, direct, or control his actions. After the carrier told us their driver had stopped, we rescheduled the load for four days later. Unbeknownst to C.H. Robinson, the driver continued driving.

Based on the facts, we and our insurers were not willing to settle this case. We took it to trial because the facts demonstrate that C.H. Robinson acted responsibly in selecting the carrier and did not cause or contribute to the accident. We remain confident those facts will ultimately prevail on appeal.

How did the jury and judge rule in Lipe v. Lupus Superior?

In addition to finding the driver and Lupus Superior liable in the accident, the jury inaccurately treated the driver as a C.H. Robinson employee and held C.H. Robinson liable as well. We strongly disagree with the jury's conclusions. We did not employ the driver, choose the driver, contact the driver, operate the truck, or control the actions of the driver involved in the accident.

The driver worked for Lupus Superior, an independent motor carrier. Our role as a broker is to choose a vetted carrier to transport our customer's goods, and we chose a carrier that had safely transported nearly 270 loads for our customers, maintained the highest federal safety rating, and retained that rating even after a federal review of the accident.

The judge in the case has affirmed the jury's ruling.

What's the status of Lipe v. Lupus Superior and what happens next?

The Montgomery decision clarified that thousands of freight brokers may be held liable if they fail to use "reasonable care" in selecting a carrier but did not define reasonable care. As one investment bank analyst wrote the day after the verdict, "If a carrier with a Satisfactory FMCSA rating is insufficient, what standard should brokers use?"

That uncertainty extends far beyond a single lawsuit. It affects carriers, brokers, shippers, and ultimately the consumers who rely on efficient supply chains. If nuclear verdicts like this one are the new normal, the movement of goods will be substantially impacted, service levels will drop significantly, and the cost of transportation will soar.

At C.H. Robinson, we have long invested in people, processes, and technology to support carrier vetting, and we were continuously enhancing those methods well before the Montgomery decision. Our business strategy and operating model remain unchanged, and C.H. Robinson continues to operate from a position of financial strength.

The current judgment in Lipe v. Lupus Superior does not determine what, if any damages, C.H. Robinson might ultimately pay. Like many complex legal matters, Lipe v. Lupus Superior is expected to move through a lengthy appeals process before a final outcome is determined. During that process, a jury's financial award may be overturned, reduced, or otherwise modified.

We have been named in court cases in the normal course for many years and have successfully defended ourselves against many negligent hiring and vicarious liability claims. We remain confident that the record in Lipe v. Lupus Superior supports reversal on appeal.

In the meantime, C.H. Robinson will continue to vigorously defend the facts of this case, advocate for clear national safety standards, and invest in the safety and risk-management practices that help keep freight moving safely and efficiently across the country.

Read More

• How Prof. Jason Miller, a noted supply chain expert, views the verdict
• What the National Association of Manufacturers had to say about the verdict
• A call to action from the Transportation Intermediaries Association and their petition for a national safety standard
• About the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport
• About C.H. Robinson's carrier vetting standards