Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 353 Conn. 486

Licensed wrecker services Modzelewski’s Towing & Storage, Inc. and Modzelewski’s Towing & Recovery, Inc. challenged a DMV ruling that they overcharged Sentry Select Insurance Co. for nonconsensual towing of a disabled tractor-trailer.
After a highway accident on I-84, police summoned the plaintiffs who used a rotator truck (costing about $800,000) to perform the recovery and tow.
The plaintiffs invoiced Sentry with charges for equipment use, labor, supervisors, an emergency vehicle, and storage; Sentry paid $29,339.30 under protest.
A DMV hearing officer found the plaintiffs charged based on their own equipment-rate schedule rather than the commissioner’s hourly labor rate, ordering restitution and civil penalties.
The Superior Court remanded and the Appellate Court affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certification to determine whether §14-63-36c(c) permits equipment costs as additional fees for exceptional services.
The Court reversed in part, held §14-63-36c(c) is ambiguous and requires posting a sign with itemized fees for exceptional services, including equipment costs, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §14-63-36c(c) is ambiguous.	§14-63-36c(c) is posting-based and permits equipment costs.	§14-63-36c(c) limits to hourly labor-based charges.	Ambiguity acknowledged; interpretation hinges on posting requirement.
What is the proper method to charge exceptional services—equipment costs vs. hourly labor?	Fees may reflect equipment costs if itemized and posted.	Fees must be based on hourly labor rate.	More reasonable interpretation: itemized fees posted to conform with hourly labor posting.
Does the rotation-list context force exclusion of equipment costs from exceptional services?	Equipment costs are necessary to provide exceptional services on rotation list.	Equipment costs are not recoverable through hourly rate and not mandated by posting rules.	Rotation-list context supports recovering equipment costs via posted, itemized exceptional fees.

Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 349 Conn. 921 (2024) (reverses Appellate Court on interpretation of §14-63-36c(c) (posting vs. hourly rate))
Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 225 Conn. App. 386 (2024) (appellate ruling on base interpretation of exceptional services rates (labor vs. equipment))
Jim's Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 285 Conn. 794 (2008) (statutory/regulatory framework for towing regulation and consumer protection)
Williams v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., 326 Conn. 651 (2017) (plain meaning rule and statutory interpretation guidance)
Cochran v. Dept. of Transportation, 350 Conn. 844 (2024) (dictionary/statutory interpretation principles in regulatory context)