Raymond's Auto Repair, LLC v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 322 Conn. 43

On December 8, 2012, a motor vehicle ran down an embankment; state police summoned Raymond’s Auto Repair (plaintiff) to perform a nonconsensual recovery/tow under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-66.
The plaintiff used an 1140 rotator to hoist the vehicle out of a 25–50 foot embankment and then loaded it onto a flatbed for transport.
Plaintiff invoiced $1,306.24, including $1,000 for roughly one hour’s use of the rotator; its posted rate and the department’s regulatory schedule provided for $400 per hour for that equipment.
The Department of Motor Vehicles’ hearing officer concluded the plaintiff overcharged by $600 and ordered restitution to the vehicle owner, Pauline Pressley.
The trial court reversed, holding federal preemption (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1)) barred state regulation of pretowing recovery services; the commissioner appealed to this court.
This Court, relying on its decision in Modzelewski’s Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, concluded state regulation of pretowing recovery services is not preempted under 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) because those services fall within the § 14501(c)(2)(C) exception, and reversed the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal preemption (49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1)) bars state regulation of fees for pretowing recovery services (use of rotator)	Federal law preempts state regulation except for regulations of towing itself; pretowing recovery services are beyond state authority	State may regulate pretowing recovery fees; § 14501(c)(2)(C) preserves state authority over services incidental to nonconsensual towing	State regulation of pretowing recovery services is not preempted; plaintiff must refund the $600 overcharge

Modzelewski’s Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 322 Conn. 20 (Conn. 2016) (held pretowing recovery services fall within § 14501(c)(2)(C) exception to federal preemption)