Vincent E. Cononico

Vincent is a member of the Casualty Department. He handles matters involving automobile liability, premises liability, underinsured and uninsured motorist liability and personal injury. Vincent has been active in civil defense litigation for over twenty-six years. He has first chair experience in over fifty jury trials.

Prior to joining the firm, Vincent was employed by the Staff Counsel Office of a major insurance carrier, initially as a trial attorney and ultimately as a Lead Counsel. As a trial attorney, he was recognized on multiple occasions for having the highest win percentage in a three state complex of offices. As Lead Counsel, he managed the Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio offices. He was responsible for mentoring his legal teams and ensuring thorough, cost-effective representation in hundreds of matters in litigation. Vincent also actively collaborated with claims professionals to ensure proper disposition of matters.

Early in his career, he worked for private law firms focusing on insurance defense, political subdivision representation and products liability.

Honors & Awards

•The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation - Insurance (2024-2025)

Published Works

•“Novel Insurance Coverage Issue? File a Declaratory Judgment Action in Federal Court, Right? Well...,” Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2023

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

May 19, 2026

Freight brokers are intermediaries. They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods. Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation.For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents. At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA . Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption. On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA. That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “...shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles-most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.”Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country:Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers 'just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy,' and 'the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier.' Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25.That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty.The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies.

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Key Issue Regarding Freight Broker Liability

October 9, 2025

The federal circuits courts are divided on application of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA). Some circuits have concluded that state law negligent hiring or supervision claims against freight brokers for personal injuries or deaths caused by commercial motor carriers are pre-empted by the FAAAA. Other circuits have concluded that the FAAAA’s safety exception applies and, therefore, the FAAAA’s pre-emption is not applicable. The U.S. Supreme Court will resolve this conflict among the federal circuit courts in Montgomery v. Carbine Transport II, LLC, 24-1238. On October 3, 2025, the high court accepted the following “question presented” in the Montgomery case:The common law permits a cause of action for negligent selection. For example, a person injured in a truck crash has a cause of action against someone that negligently selected the truck driver to transport property. A federal statute expressly 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.” 49 U.S.C. 14501(c)(1). The statute has a safety exception, providing that the statute “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” Id. 14501(c)(2)(A). The question presented is: Does 14501(c) preempt a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver?Therefore, the Supreme Court will resolve the conflict and provide much needed clarity to litigants regarding the application of the FAAAA. It is likely that we will have a ruling within six months to a year. For further background, see Vincent's article 'Sixth Circuit Issues Key Ruling on Freight Broker Liability in Trucking Industry,' published July 14, 2025. Legal Update for Trucking & Transportation Liability - October 9, 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

News

98 Marshall Dennehey Attorneys Recognized in the 2026 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America

August 20, 2025