It should not make any difference whether a carrier has had their authority revoked or not as far as the broker or any other third party having liability. The only reason they went after CHR is that they had no chance of collecting from the carrier and they felt that they could find a sympathetic jury. Apparently they were correct. Personally, I think juries should be given an IQ test before they are allowed to sit on ANY jury. Often the law doesn't have anything to do in a civil judgment. If the plaintiff's attorney's can make the jury sympathetic to their client then they have a good chance of getting a judgment. It doesn't matter whether it is right or wrong. Lawyers want a jury to feel sorry for their client. They want them to punish the defendent for the wrongs the one actually responsible. Basically, they want something for nothing. I feel sorry for those who had loved ones who were hurt, but it doesn't do any good to extort money from someone or company that had nothing to do with this incident. All they did was book a load of freight. At the time the carrier had authority and insurance. That is all that should matter when a broker books a load. He should not have to worry about being sued in court if the carrier has an accident. If this isn't over turned on appeal it will open a huge can of worms.
The fmcsa no longer publishes the actual amount of liability insurance for carriers, only the minimum requirement is listed. The reason is that lawyers and those who were involved in any sort of accident with a carrier would check to see how much insurance the carrier had and that is what they sued for. Again, they go after the deep pockets.