No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The appellate court affirmed the administrative decision that plaintiffs Modzelewski's Towing and T Co./R Co. overcharged for nonconsensual towing and recovery services in violation of state regulations, upholding the hearing officer's order for restitution and civil fines.
The plaintiff licensed motor vehicle dealers and repairers, T Co. and R Co., appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their administrative appeal from the final decision of the defendant Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, who determined that the plaintiffs had overcharged the owner of a damaged tractor trailer for certain nonconsensual towing and recovery services. The plaintiffs had been summoned by the state police to provide towing and recovery services after the tractor trailer, which was insured by the defendant S Co., was damaged in an accident on Interstate 84. The plaintiffs used special equipment to clear the tractor trailer from the highway and tow it to the plaintiffs' storage facility where it remained for twenty-eight days. The plaintiffs subsequently charged the owner of the tractor trailer for the towing and recovery services, which S Co. paid. S Co. thereafter filed a complaint with the Department of Motor Vehicles, claiming that the plaintiffs' charges were unreasonable and excessive in light of indus- try standards and the department's regulations (§ 14-63-34 et seq.) gov- erning charges for nonconsensual towing and recovery services. After a hearing, a department hearing officer, relying on §§ 14-63-36b and 14- 63-36c of the regulations, issued a decision, concluding that the plaintiffs had overcharged for their services, and ordering them to pay restitution to S Co. and a civil fine to the department. The hearing officer reasoned that the plaintiffs had established their own rate schedule based on the equipment they had used and charged for equipment using their rate schedule rather than the department's approved hourly rate for labor schedule. The hearing officer also declined the plaintiffs' request to dismiss S Co.'s complaint as to R Co., which was based on the plaintiffs' claim that R Co. was a separate entity that did not participate in the towing and recovery services involving the tractor trailer. On appeal, the
What Happened
Modzelewski's Towing & Storage was called by state police to tow a damaged tractor trailer after an accident. The company charged the truck owner for the towing and recovery services, but the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles determined that Modzelewski's had overcharged the owner beyond what state regulations allow for involuntary towing services.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with the Department of Motor Vehicles. It upheld the agency's decision that Modzelewski's Towing violated state regulations by charging excessive fees for the nonconsensual towing work. The court affirmed that the company must pay restitution to the truck owner and also pay civil fines as ordered by the hearing officer.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects drivers and vehicle owners from predatory towing practices. When your vehicle is towed involuntarily (like after an accident), towing companies cannot charge whatever they want. State regulations set limits on these fees, and this decision confirms that these protections are enforceable. If you believe you've been overcharged for emergency towing services, you can file complaints with your state's motor vehicle department.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by…
The plaintiff insured appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defen- dant insurance company on her amended complaint alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an insurance dispute concerning…
The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's order remanding its administra- tive appeal from the decision of its human rights referee, which concluded that the defendant employer had discriminated against its former employee, M, on the basis of her disability but that M failed to establish that…
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.