210 Conn.App. 558
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Lucky 13 (Midnight Auto), a licensed wrecker/dealer, towed a disabled vehicle at the Stratford police's request (nonconsensual tow) to its storage yard.
- Amica (insurer) hired Copart, which directed Tech to retrieve the vehicle; Lucky 13 earlier provided Copart a bill including a $93.59 charge described as moving/positioning the vehicle for loading.
- When Tech’s driver arrived, he signed a "Consensual Tow Form" requesting immediate release; Lucky 13 moved the vehicle and released it.
- Amica complained to the DMV; after an evidentiary hearing the hearing officer found the tow nonconsensual and the $93.59 gate fee unlawful, ordering $93.59 restitution and a $1,000 civil penalty.
- The trial court dismissed Lucky 13’s administrative appeal; on appeal to the Appellate Court Lucky 13 argued federal preemption, that the expedited service made the release consensual, and that the contract was enforceable. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal preemption of state regulation of gate fees | Federal law preempts state regulation when fee is paid under a voluntary agreement for expedited service | Claim was not raised before agency or pleaded in trial court; therefore not preserved | Not reviewed — claim waived for failure to preserve |
| Did the expedited service/contract transform the release into a consensual tow? | The signed "Consensual Tow Form" for immediate release made the release a consensual tow (exempt from nonconsensual-tow rate limits) | The tow began as nonconsensual (police-ordered) and the regulations treat the tow charge as covering release, so a later expedited-release agreement does not convert it | Held nonconsensual: agreement did not convert the tow; gate fee prohibited |
| Was the $93.59 gate fee permitted under the regulations? | Fee covered labor/equipment to move the car and immediate release; argued as permissible additional service | Regulations define tow charge to include release and expressly prohibit additional fees for releasing a nonconsensually towed vehicle | Fee unlawful under Connecticut regs; substantial evidence supports DMV determination |
| Enforceability of the "Consensual Tow Form" (public policy) | The contract was an arm’s-length voluntary agreement benefiting both parties and should be enforceable | Enforcing such contracts would subvert statutory/regulatory consumer protections and permit circumvention of regulated rates | Contract void as against public policy; enforcing it would undermine the regulatory scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Motor Cars v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 300 Conn. 617 (2011) (treats tow charge as encompassing release and prohibits gate fees for nonconsensual tows)
- Modzelewski’s Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 322 Conn. 20 (2016) (supports broad regulatory reach over services related to nonconsensual towing)
- Ferraro v. Ridgefield European Motors, Inc., 313 Conn. 735 (2014) (explains preservation rule for appellate review of issues not raised before administrative agency)
- Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 254 Conn. 333 (2000) (clarifies substantial-evidence standard and limited scope of judicial review under UAPA)