Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

FAMILY GARAGE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES (AC 32001) (AC 32003)
Bishop, Espinosa and Mihalakos, Js. Argued May 16--officially released July 26, 2011

(Appeals from Superior Court, judicial district of New

Britain, Cohn, J.) Thomas J. Weihing, with whom, on the brief, were Virginia C. Foreman and John T. Bochanis, for the appellant (plaintiff). Drew S. Graham, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen, attorney general, for the appellee.

Opinion

BISHOP, J. These consolidated appeals arise from two complaints filed with the department of motor vehicles (department) alleging that the plaintiff, Family Garage, Inc., charged illegal ``steering fees'' for the release of vehicles that it had towed to its place of business.1 The plaintiff appeals from the judgments of the trial court dismissing its administrative appeals from the decisions of the defendant, the state commissioner of motor vehicles (commissioner), ordering the plaintiff to make restitution to the complainants and to pay civil penalties. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in upholding the findings of the commissioner who, acting through the department hearing officer, improperly (1) determined that steering fees were unauthorized at the time of the incidents, (2) based his decision solely upon unreliable hearsay evidence, (3) determined that the plaintiff had charged fees to release the vehicles and (4) condoned a violation of public policy. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff's claims. As to AC 32001, in October, 2006, the plaintiff towed a damaged vehicle owned by Brenda Smith and Daniel Smith to its place of business. The vehicle was insured by Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers). On October 13, 2006, the owners requested that the plaintiff release the vehicle, at which time it wrote an invoice to Daniel Smith describing a $500 ``steering fee--forced by insurance company to use shop of their own choice.'' Travelers paid the charge. Subsequently, Travelers filed a complaint with the department on November 8, 2006. In a memorandum of decision following a hearing, the commissioner ordered the plaintiff to make restitution to Travelers in the amount of $500 and to pay a civil penalty of $250 to the department. As to AC 32003, in December, 2006, the plaintiff had towed a damaged vehicle owned by Marie Sainvil to its place of business. The vehicle was insured by Progressive Insurance Company (Progressive). On December 6, 2006, Sainvil requested that the plaintiff release the vehicle, at which time it wrote invoices to Sainvil describing a $750 ``steering fee'' and a $48 fee for ``1 hour wasted with owner by phone.'' Progressive ultimately paid the charges. Subsequently, Progressive filed a complaint with the department on December 19, 2006. In a memorandum of decision following a hearing, the commissioner ordered the plaintiff to make restitution to Progressive in the amount of $798 and to pay a civil penalty of $250 to the department. The plaintiff appealed both decisions to the Superior Court. The court issued a memorandum of decision on February 8, 2010, dismissing the plaintiff's appeals.

These appeals followed. We begin with our standard of review of an administrative appeal. ``We review the issues raised by the plaintiff in accordance with the limited scope of judicial review afforded by the [Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), General Statutes

Download Family Garage, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.pdf

Connecticut Law