130 Conn. App. 353
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Family Garage, Inc. towed two damaged vehicles and charged 'steering fees' to release them, one involving Travelers (AC 32001) and one involving Progressive (AC 32003).
- In AC 32001 (October 2006), the owner paid a $500 steering fee described as forced by the insurance company to use its chosen shop.
- In AC 32003 (December 2006), the owner was charged a $750 steering fee and a $48 fee for '1 hour wasted with owner by phone' tied to release; Progressive paid.
- Department investigated; hearings led to decisions ordering restitution ($500 to Travelers; $798 to Progressive) and civil penalties ($250 each).
- Plaintiff appealed to Superior Court; the court dismissed the administrative appeals; judgments affirmed on review.
- Regulatory framework before 2006 prohibited nonconsensual steering fees; a 2007 department letter clarified that such fees are not authorized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether steering fees were unauthorized at the time. | Family Garage argues the 2007 letter created a new regulation requiring notice in 2006. | Commissioner/dept treated the 2007 letter as a clarification, not a new rule, and the preexisting regulations already prohibited steering fees. | Steering fees were unauthorized at the time. |
| Whether the department relied on hearsay documents as substantial evidence. | Complaint documents from insurers were hearsay; owners did not testify or cross-examine. | Hearsay evidence from documentary records is admissible if trustworthy and corroborated; there was other corroborating evidence. | Documentary evidence alone or with corroboration supported the decision; not abuse of discretion. |
| Whether fees were charged in connection with the release of the vehicles. | The 'steering fee' was restitution related to contract issues, not release of the vehicle. | Evidence, including the invoices, tied the fees to releasing the vehicles and not unrelated disputes. | There was substantial evidence the fees were charged in connection with release. |
| Whether the commissioner condoned a public policy violation. | Restitution to complainants amounted to condoning their improper conduct. | Administrative review focuses on the agency's action, not collateral conduct by complainants, and statutes/regs govern the outcome. | Commissioner did not condone improper conduct; the decision stood on the parties' culpability under the regulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Motor Cars v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 300 Conn. 617 (2011) (regulatory framework; 'tow charge' includes release and related services)
- Spitz v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 127 Conn.App. 108 (2011) (standard of review for administrative findings)
- Salmon Brook Convalescent Home, Inc. v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 177 Conn. 356 (1979) (agency decisions not a regulation revision; lack of change in standard)
- Persico v. Maher, 191 Conn. 384 (1983) (regulatory interpretation; not a revision of preexisting standards)
- Carlson v. Kozlowski, 172 Conn. 263 (1977) (trustworthiness of hearsay; applicable to administrative proceedings)
- Addona v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 121 Conn.App. 355 (2010) (administrative hearing evidence admissibility; trustworthiness)
- State v. Connecticut State Employees Assn., SEIU Local 2001, 287 Conn. 258 (2008) (public policy considerations in quasi-judicial contexts)