(214) 658-1900 
What is the FAAAA?
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (commonly called the “FAAAA”) is a federal statute that broadly preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier ... or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property.” See 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c). The FAAAA was enacted to promote uniformity in the regulation of the trucking and freight industry, preventing states from imposing varying requirements that would hinder the free flow of goods in inter- and intra-state commerce. Although the FAAAA is often overlooked, its impact on the transportation industry is far-reaching.
Under the FAAAA, non-contractual state-law claims—such as negligence, negligent hiring, and common-law fraud—are preempted when they relate to the core services provided by a carrier or broker. This has become especially important in modern transportation litigation, where plaintiffs increasingly assert tort-based claims against brokers and carriers alongside breach of contract allegations.
Courts across the country have applied the FAAAA broadly, concluding that it preempts state-law claims when they “relate to” the services of a carrier or broker, particularly when those claims involve loss or damage to transported goods.
The Farfan Case: Preemption in Broker Context
A recent federal decision in the Southern District of Texas illustrates the FAAAA’s sweeping preemptive scope. In Farfan v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., the court held that a negligence claim brought against a freight broker was preempted by the FAAAA, despite the plaintiff’s argument that the broker had failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting the motor carrier. See Farfan v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 3d 763, 770 (S.D. Tex. 2024). The court emphasized that such claims fall squarely within the FAAAA’s preemptive reach, as they directly relate to the broker’s core service—arranging transportation of property. Id. at 768.
Notably, the court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to invoke the FAAAA’s limited “safety exception,” id. at 769, which allows states to pass safety regulations with respect to motor vehicles. See 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(2)(A). The court reasoned that claims like negligent hiring or selection, where the alleged harm is property damage rather than personal injury, are too attenuated from actual motor vehicle safety to fall within the exception. Id at 769-70. As a result, the plaintiff’s non-contractual claims were barred.
Our Firm’s Victory in Hausman Foods v. Trinity Logistics
Our Firm recently secured a significant win on this very issue in Hausman Foods, LLC v. Trinity Logistics, Inc., a case previously pending in Nueces County, Texas. In that case, the plaintiff brought claims for negligence and negligent hiring against our client, a licensed freight broker, after allegedly spoiled beef was delivered in an interstate shipment. While the plaintiff attempted to avoid preemption by asserting concerns about “food safety,” our team successfully argued that the claims were, at their core, non-contractual tort claims relating to the transportation of property—and thus preempted by the FAAAA.
We emphasized the key legal distinction recognized by courts nationwide: that while the FAAAA may not preempt claims arising from personal injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents, it does preempt non-contractual tort claims seeking recovery for cargo damage. We also distinguished the handful of personal-injury-based cases cited by the plaintiff, showing they were inapplicable in the context of property loss.
Citing persuasive federal authority—including the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Aspen American Insurance Co. v. Landstar Ranger, Inc. and the Southern District of Texas’s holding in AMRO Fabricating Corp. v. Aslan Express, LLC—the Court agreed with our position. It held that the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims were preempted under the FAAAA, leaving only a breach of contract claim against the broker.
Why the FAAAA Matters?
The FAAAA continues to play a crucial role in shaping transportation litigation. Its broad preemptive scope protects brokers and carriers from a patchwork of state-law claims and helps maintain consistency in the transportation of goods across state lines. The distinction between claims involving personal injury (often not preempted) and those concerning cargo damage (often preempted) remains essential in litigation strategy.
Our firm has extensive experience litigating FAAAA preemption across Texas and the United States. We apply the current body of federal law to vigorously defend our clients, while also playing an active role in its continued development. Carriers and brokers facing claims for cargo damage should consult legal counsel of their choice and carefully consider the potential application of the FAAAA as part of their defense strategy.
Davinder Jassal is an Associate Attorney with Henry Oddo Austin & Fletcher, P.C., with a focus on Transportation law. This article is made available by the attorney and/or law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law; it is not being made available to provide specific legal advice. By using this website and/or article, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the law firm publisher or attorney author. This website should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
May 01, 2025
