225 Conn.App. 386
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Modzelewski’s Towing & Storage, Inc., and Modzelewski’s Towing & Recovery, Inc. (owned by the same individual) were summoned by Connecticut State Police to recover and tow a damaged tractor trailer from an accident scene.
- The towing services were performed using specialized equipment and the tractor trailer was stored for twenty-eight days at the plaintiffs’ facility.
- Plaintiffs invoiced $29,339 for these services, which was paid in full by Sentry Select Insurance Company under protest to secure the vehicle's release.
- Sentry filed a complaint with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), alleging the charges were excessive and not in line with state regulation.
- Following an administrative hearing and subsequent court review, the DMV found the plaintiffs overcharged by including equipment-based fees in violation of regulatory requirements for nonconsensual tows.
- The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal, affirming the agency’s order for restitution and a civil penalty; this was appealed to the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charges for exceptional services can include equipment costs or must be labor only | Equipment charges are permitted under regulations for exceptional services | Only labor-based hourly charges allowed for such services | Regulations require only hourly labor rates for exceptional services; equipment charges are not allowed |
| Whether plaintiff’s posted rate schedule complied with regulatory requirements | Rate schedule sufficient; reflected their charges for services | Schedule did not comply in required form or substance | Schedule did not conform to regulations; improperly included equipment fees and was not properly posted |
| Whether civil fine was improperly imposed | Fine was based on unresolved legal interpretation, not willful violation | Fine warranted due to repeated violations and overcharges | Substantial evidence supported the fine given clear regulatory violations and unsupported charges |
| Whether inclusion of Modzelewski’s Towing & Recovery, Inc. as respondent was supported | Recovery, Inc. was a separate entity, not involved in the tow | Record showed Recovery, Inc. was involved or ambiguously billed | Sufficient evidence supported inclusion based on documents and lack of clear separation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucky 13 Industries, LLC v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 210 Conn. App. 558 (scope of judicial review of administrative agency actions in Connecticut, substantial evidence standard)
- Costas v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 213 Conn. App. 719 (statutory and regulatory interpretation by courts is de novo in absence of longstanding agency construction)
- Connecticut Motor Cars v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 300 Conn. 617 (standard of review for agency interpretation of statutes and regulations)