Courts Crack Down on Double Brokering: Two Cases Every Freight Professional Should Know

Double brokering has long been an open secret in trucking. Recent court decisions suggest that era of tolerance may be ending.

Two new cases—one from a Nevada federal district court and one from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—show judges increasingly willing to hold brokers and carriers accountable when loads are improperly passed along. The rulings raise the stakes around “reasonable care,” vicarious liability, and the risks of doing business with parties known to double-broker freight.

The Aone Case: Knowledge Can Create Liability

In Hardy v. Singh, stemming from a July 2022 crash that killed one person and injured another, a smaller broker, Aone Brokerage Company (doing business as A1Logistics), found itself in the crosshairs.

Aone had brokered a load to Lucky Transport. Lucky then re-brokered it to a second carrier, Bhupinder Singh, whose truck was involved in the fatal crash. Singh had previously driven for Lucky and continued using the company’s fuel card and a rented trailer.

Aone sought summary judgment, arguing it could not be held liable for negligence because it did not directly hire the ultimate carrier. The company claimed it had performed due diligence before contracting with Lucky.

The court was not persuaded. Aone’s owner, Amandeep Singh, admitted under testimony that he knew Lucky had used third-party carriers on some loads in the past.

That knowledge proved damaging.

The court found evidence that Aone may have breached its duty of care by continuing to do business with a carrier it knew engaged in double brokering. Illegal double-brokering, the court noted, can put higher-risk drivers on the road.

While the decision does not create binding nationwide precedent, transportation attorney Tyler Biddle has observed that plaintiffs’ lawyers are likely to cite it going forward. The case reinforces that ignoring known double-brokering activity can undermine a “reasonable care” defense.

The Penske Case: Control Can Equal Employment

In a separate ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court and allowed a case against Penske to proceed on vicarious liability grounds.

Penske (which holds motor carrier, freight broker, and freight forwarder authority) outsourced a load through its affiliate broker, Penske Transportation Management (PTM), to Liberty Lane. Liberty Lane’s affiliate broker then hired OK Trans, which supplied the truck and driver. That driver, Satnam Singh Lehal, jackknifed, crossed into oncoming traffic, and caused a fatal collision.

The victim’s family argued Penske was vicariously liable as the driver’s “statutory employer.” The appeals court agreed that Penske’s assumption of control and responsibility over the vehicle could make it the employer for liability purposes.

Although the arrangement involved affiliated entities that held proper authorities—and co-brokerage between licensed brokers is legal—the case still highlights how quickly liability can travel up the chain when control and responsibility are assumed.

Biddle noted that companies holding both carrier and broker authority must be especially careful about “which hat they’re wearing.” Clear operational lines matter.

What This Means for the Industry

These cases arrive at a moment when double brokering remains widespread, even as courts grow less tolerant of the practice. Key takeaways include:

• Knowledge matters. Continuing to work with a carrier or broker known to double-broker loads can be used as evidence of a breach of the duty of reasonable care.

• Vicarious liability is real. Courts are willing to look past formal contracting structures when one party retains meaningful control or responsibility.

• Multiple authorities create risk. Entities that hold both broker and carrier authority must maintain clear separations in how loads are handled.

• Due diligence is not optional. Simply claiming you hired a licensed carrier may no longer be enough if red flags were ignored.

For shippers, the rulings underscore the importance of knowing who is actually moving freight and ensuring contracts and vetting processes discourage unauthorized re-brokering. For brokers and carriers, the message is clearer still: illegal double brokering—and knowingly enabling it—carries growing legal exposure.

Practical Defenses Against Double Brokering

Owner-operators and fleets are already adapting. Common practices include:

• Using factoring companies and load boards to verify broker legitimacy and creditworthiness

• Cross-checking phone numbers against official company websites and office locations

• Calling bonding companies directly to confirm active bonds with no outstanding claims

• Requiring up-front or COD-by-wire payment when a load cannot be factored

• Using free credit-check tools such as BrokerCreditCheck.com

Carriers and brokers should also maintain clear internal procedures to identify whether loads are being double-brokered and to document due diligence.

Looking Ahead

The combination of the Aone ruling and the Fifth Circuit’s decision on Penske signals that plaintiffs’ attorneys have new material to work with. Another significant verdict could follow.

At Gain Consulting, we help shippers, brokers, and carriers strengthen vetting processes. In today’s environment, knowing exactly who is handling your freight is no longer just good practice—it is a risk-management necessity.

The courts are paying closer attention. The industry should too.