205 Conn.App. 368
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Towing & Recovery Professionals of Connecticut filed a petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-66(a)(2) seeking higher nonconsensual towing and storage rates.
- Public hearing held December 6, 2017; hearing officer issued a decision March 6, 2018 granting increases smaller than the plaintiff requested.
- Plaintiff appealed; parties asked Superior Court for remand (granted); remand hearing December 12, 2018; commissioner issued final decision February 15, 2019 maintaining the prior increases.
- Plaintiff appealed the commissioner's final decision to Superior Court arguing it lacked substantial evidence; the court dismissed the administrative appeal; plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court.
- Central legal context: both the statute (§ 14-66(a)(2)) and the implementing regulation (§ 14-63-36a) list factors the commissioner "may" consider (e.g., CPI, rates in other jurisdictions, operating costs); dispute focused on how the commissioner weighed those factors and whether the decision to limit increases essentially to the CPI was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a regulation must be given equal or greater weight than the statute when assessing a rate petition | Regulation should not be subordinated; factors listed in regulation must be meaningfully weighed | Commissioner has discretion to weigh statutory and regulatory factors; both use "may" | Commissioner may exercise discretion; no error in treating factors as permissive |
| Whether cost of a wrecker is a standalone factor or only relevant with CPI | Wrecker operating costs have increased and must be explicitly incorporated beyond CPI | Wrecker costs are one of several permissive factors and may be weighed alongside CPI | Commissioner permissibly treated wrecker costs as one discretionary factor and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether commissioner abused discretion by minimizing operating costs and ignoring undisputed expert evidence | Commissioner ignored (or improperly minimized) undisputed expert evidence showing increased operating costs | Commissioner considered evidence and appropriately weighed it under permitted discretion | No abuse of discretion; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
| Whether the decision to limit increases to the CPI was unsupported by substantial evidence | Limiting to CPI ignored record evidence of cost increases and thus lacked substantial evidentiary support | Record shows commissioner considered alternatives and the conclusions were reasonable | Decision was supported by substantial evidence; courts may not substitute their judgment for agency factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 254 Conn. 333 (2000) (describing substantial-evidence review and limits on courts reweighing administrative factfinding)
- Office of Consumer Counsel v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 252 Conn. 115 (2000) ("may" in statute/regulation generally confers permissive discretion)
- Connecticut Podiatric Medical Assn. v. Health Net of Connecticut, Inc., 302 Conn. 464 (2011) (avoidance of statutory surplusage; each statutory term presumed meaningful)
- Sarrazin v. Coastal, Inc., 311 Conn. 581 (2014) (administrative regulations have force of law and are construed similarly to statutes)