Modzelewski's Towing & Storage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- Appeal from Department of Motor Vehicles hearing officer decision to trial court
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The trial court upheld the Department of Motor Vehicles hearing officer's decision that licensed wrecker services overcharged for nonconsensual towing services by basing fees on special equipment used rather than hourly labor rates as required by state regulation, ordering restitution and civil penalties.
Excerpt
Pursuant to state regulation (§ 14-63-36c (c)), ''[a] licensed wrecker service may charge additional fees for exceptional services, and for services not included in the tow charge or hourly rate, which are reasonable and neces- sary for the nonconsensual towing . . . of a motor vehicle. Any such addi- tional fees shall be itemized in accordance with the hourly charge for labor posted by the licensed towing service, as required by the provisions of section 14-65j-3 of the [state regulations].'' The plaintiffs, wrecker services licensed in Connecticut, appealed to the trial court from the decision of a Department of Motor Vehicles hearing officer, who determined that the plaintiffs had overcharged the owner of a tractor trailer for certain nonconsensual towing services, and who ordered that the plaintiffs pay restitution and imposed a civil penalty. The plaintiffs were summoned by the state police to provide towing services after the tractor trailer, which was insured by the defendant insurance company S Co., became disabled during a highway accident. The plaintiffs used special equipment to remove the tractor trailer from the highway and to tow it to the plaintiffs' storage facilities. The plaintiffs sent S Co. an itemized invoice for the work performed, including fees associated with the use of the special equipment, which S Co. paid under protest. S Co. subsequently filed a complaint with the named defendant, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, claiming, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' charges were unfair and unreasonable. In determining that the plaintiffs overcharged for their services, the hearing officer concluded that the plaintiffs had established their own rate schedule for nonconsensual towing services that was based on the special equipment they used, rather than on the hourly rate for labor set by the commissioner. The hearing officer ultimately disallowed most of the plaintiffs' charges, including any charge that was deemed to be an equipment charge and
What This Ruling Means
What This Case Was About
Modzelewski's Towing & Storage challenged a state ruling that they had overcharged customers for towing services. The Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles found that the company was billing customers based on the special equipment they used during tows, rather than following state regulations that require towing companies to charge based on hourly labor rates. The state said this billing method resulted in customers being overcharged for non-consensual towing (when your car gets towed without your permission, like from a parking violation).
What the Court Decided
The court sided with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The judge upheld the state's decision that the towing company had violated billing regulations and confirmed that the company must pay restitution to overcharged customers and pay civil penalties.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects consumers from unfair towing charges. It reinforces that towing companies must follow strict state regulations about how they bill customers and cannot make up their own pricing methods. If you've been towed, companies must itemize their charges based on actual hourly labor rates, not inflate prices based on equipment used. This helps ensure fair, transparent pricing in the towing industry.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (§ 31-293 (a)), an injured employee may assert a claim against and recover damages from a tortfeasor who is allegedly liable for the employee's work-related injury, even if the employee is entitled to workers' compensation benefits for that injury, and an…
The defendant P filed a complaint with the named defendant, the Commis- sion on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that P's former employer, the plaintiff, the Hartford Police Department, had discrimi- nated against P on the basis of his ancestry. Upon graduating from the police academy, P,…
Pursuant to statute (§ 46a-58 (a)), ''[i]t shall be a discriminatory practice . . . for any person to subject, or cause to be subjected, any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of this state or of the United…
Pursuant to statute (§ 31-60 [b]), the Commissioner of Labor shall adopt regulations that carry out the purposes of the minimum wage laws, and such regulations shall entitle employers, as part of the minimum fair wage, to a tip credit by including gratuities in an amount equal to a certain…
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.