There's no one state

that's necessarily figured it out.

we'll get into this a little more, but I think a number of States have started pursuing more reforms in this area.

Uh, but, but it is a problem.

And I think why it's particularly painful for carriers is, uh, you know, it's, it's a surprise.

Some of these bills, uh, are, are massive and they're just not expecting that.

Uh, oftentimes, uh, We're talking about an accident situation.

Does it ever make sense to just pay the ransom and then live to fight another day, meaning hire somebody like Prasad or somebody else to sort of fight? Can the motor carrier win that way? Or is that just like a fool's errand to just pay and

services of motor carriers and brokers.

That preemption clause also had an exception.

We call it the safety exception, and that's with respect to the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.

And really, the court was trying to determine what does it mean, what does the phrase with respect to motor vehicles really mean? I'll quickly just get to the end.

I'll Skip the suspense.

The court held that the negligent hiring claim was not preempted by the F4A.

And it held that a negligent hiring claim because a broker is hiring a carrier to transport goods was with respect to motor vehicles and saved by the safety exception.

So I think – Steve,