Connecticut allows towing companies to rack up equipment fees

Connecticut has a cap on how much motorists can be charged for nonconsensual tows. But a state Supreme Court ruling is letting tow companies include a wide range of additional charges for “exceptional services.”

Like several states, Connecticut regulates rates for nonconsensual towing. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) states the maximum hourly rate for heavy-duty trucks is $700. For oversize or overweight trucks, the rate jumps to $1,500 per hour. Using a rotator truck costs $1,275 per hour. These rates are higher than those in many other states.

The rates apply to a standard nonconsensual tow. If a job gets a bit more complicated, tow companies are allowed to tack on extra charges for “exceptional services.” Specifically, section 14-63-36c(c) reads:

“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 necessary for the nonconsensual towing or transporting of a motor vehicle. Any such additional fees shall be itemized in accordance with the hourly charge for labor posted by the licensed towing service …”

That statue was the center of a towing bill dispute that lasted more than a decade.

In 2014, a tractor-trailer crashed on Interstate 84 in Danbury. Police called Modzelewski’s Towing and Storage, which used special equipment to remove the truck wedged under a guardrail. They employed a rotator truck, an OSHA rigging supervisor and additional equipment.

After 28 days in storage, the nonconsensual towing bill exceeded $29,000.

The trucking company’s insurance company paid the bill in protest. A complaint with the DMV was filed, claiming the charges were unfair and unreasonable.

The DMV agreed. In August 2020, a hearing officer found Modzelewski’s set its rates based on special equipment, not the hourly rate set by the commissioner.

It all came down to labor versus equipment. The hearing officer ruled that the regulation allows charges for labor using special equipment, but not for the equipment itself.

Of the original bill that was more than $29,000, the DMV found that less than $5,000 was allowed. More than a dozen charges were cut down to just four:

Modzelewski’s was ordered to pay nearly $25,000 in restitution and a $4,000 civil penalty. The towing company disputed the DMV’s determination in court.

While the DMV argued that only labor can be billed, Modzelewski’s contended that equipment costs should be included.

Both the trial court and appellate court agreed with the DMV. They found that section 14-63-36c(c)’s “additional fees for exceptional services” do not include costs associated with the procurement and maintenance of special equipment used. Rather, those fees must be based on the hourly labor rate for nonconsensual towing, as determined by the DMV.

“The regulations clearly and unambiguously do not provide for the inclusion of these factors in setting the hourly rate for exceptional services,” the appellate court ruled. “They only permit an hourly charge for exceptional services that is specifically based on labor.”

However, the Connecticut Supreme Court shot down all three decisions. Justice Andrew McDonald, with all seven justices concurring, balked at the appellate court’s claim that the regulation is clear and unambiguous. The court found that the statute is open to interpretation and that the towing company’s reading is more reasonable.

The Supreme Court argued that if towing companies cannot recover equipment costs, they might not provide exceptional services.

Companies on the police rotation list need specialized equipment. A 75-ton rotator can cost nearly $1 million.

The court rejected the idea of including those costs in the DMV’s rates. If the DMV set rates to cover such equipment, motorists not needing exceptional services would end up subsidizing those who do. It would also be a windfall for towing companies that choose not to have that equipment.

“In light of the fact that wrecker services are required to purchase costly and specialized equipment to enable them to perform exceptional services for purposes of being included on the state police’s rotation list, it would be well-nigh bizarre if wrecker services are precluded from recovering, pursuant to section 14-63-36c (c) of the regulations, sufficient funds to recoup the costs for procuring, insuring and maintaining that special equipment,” the Supreme Court ruled.

Modzelewski’s restitution and civil penalty were vacated. The dispute will go back to the hearing officer, who will have to reassess the nonconsensual tow bill based on the new interpretation of the regulations.

Towing bill of rights

Connecticut lawmakers enacted a law providing towing reform earlier this month. It addresses nonconsensual towing and requires all tow companies in the state to make available a new consumer bill of rights for nonconsensual tows.

There will no longer be a single nonconsensual towing rate schedule. The DMV will separate rate schedules for private property trespass towing and police-ordered towing. New rates were supposed to go into effect Oct. 1, but as of Thursday, Oct. 9, the DMV’s website still listed the temporary rates set in July. LL

State Legislative Editor Keith Goble contributed to this story.