Parks Superior Sales, Inc. v. BPOA, State Board of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers and Salespersons
914 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Parks Superior Sales, Inc., a Connecticut funeral-specialty vehicle dealer, sold specialty funeral vehicles to Pennsylvania customers through a single salesperson (John O’Donnell) who lived and worked from his Pennsylvania home.
- From 2010–2012, the salesperson sold 55 vehicles to Pennsylvania residents; paperwork and vehicle assembly/modification occurred in Connecticut.
- The Pennsylvania Board charged Parks with engaging in the business of a vehicle dealer in Pennsylvania without a license and assessed a $55,000 fine ($1,000 per vehicle) plus investigation costs and a cease-and-desist order.
- Parks did not appear at the Board hearing; the Board found Parks violated Section 5(a) of the Vehicle Manufacturers/Dealers Act and imposed penalties.
- Parks sought rehearing (initially denied as untimely), obtained nunc pro tunc relief from this Court, and appealed the Board’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parks engaged in the business of a vehicle dealer "within this Commonwealth" requiring a Pennsylvania dealer license | Parks: sales were to specialized business purchasers, infrequent, conducted from Connecticut (paperwork done there); contacts with PA were tenuous and insufficient to constitute doing business in PA | Board/Commonwealth: Parks used a PA phone number, its salesperson worked in PA and finalized at least one sale from PA; therefore Parks’ activities fall within the Act’s definition of dealer activity in PA | Court reversed Board: Parks’ activities in PA were insubstantial and did not amount to engaging in the business as a vehicle dealer in Pennsylvania; imposing license/fine would not harmonize with Act’s public-safety purpose and could raise dormant commerce concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerbeck Cadillac Pontiac, Inc. v. State Board of Vehicle Manufacturers, Dealers & Salespersons, 854 A.2d 663 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (statutory language must be read to harmonize with the statute’s purpose)
- Carolina Trucks & Equipment, Inc. v. Volvo Trucks of North America, Inc., 492 F.3d 484 (4th Cir. 2007) (declining to apply a state statute extraterritorially; warning against using in-state contacts to regulate out-of-state transactions and raising dormant commerce clause concerns)