A Connecticut court handed insurer GEICO a clear win, ruling that insurers filing regulatory complaints over towing charges are protected by absolute immunity.
The Connecticut Appellate Court upheld dismissal of claims brought by four towing and auto repair businesses against GEICO and two of its employees.
The court found that complaints GEICO filed with the state Department of Motor Vehicles over nonconsensual towing and storage fees fall under the litigation privilege.
The dispute grew out of a long-running fight between GEICO and four Connecticut businesses, Modzelewski’s Towing & Storage, Chris’ Auto Clinic, MyHoopty, and Farmington Auto Park.
The companies accused GEICO, insurance investigator John P. Vaz, and claims manager Patrick Capri of filing hundreds of baseless complaints with the DMV between 2017 and 2021.
Those complaints alleged overcharging and improper fees for nonconsensual towing, transport, and storage services.
The businesses argued that conduct amounted to tortious interference with customer relationships, defamation through libel and slander, and promissory estoppel.
They also claimed GEICO contacted other jurisdictions, police departments, and government entities in an effort to portray them as bad actors.
The complaint went further. The plaintiffs alleged Vaz and Capri personally encouraged customers to file complaints with the DMV and pushed them to make statements contradicting documents they had already signed.
On promissory estoppel, the businesses said GEICO had agreed to pay towing and storage charges and that they released vehicles based on those promises.
They said GEICO later paid the charges, then tried to claw the money back through DMV complaints. Messy sequence. Bad blood all over it.
GEICO and the two employees moved to dismiss the case in February 2024. Their argument was straightforward.
The DMV complaint and hearing process for nonconsensual towing disputes qualifies as a quasi-judicial proceeding, so statements tied to that process carry absolute privilege. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case in August 2024.
On appeal, the towing businesses did not challenge the finding that the DMV process is quasi-judicial. Instead, they argued public policy.
They said the lower court blurred the line between ordinary industry regulation and the sort of power imbalance that usually supports absolute immunity.
They also challenged the idea that a large national insurer should be allowed to flood a state agency with complaints against local towing businesses without legal exposure.
In a unanimous opinion by Chief Judge Cradle, joined by Judges Suarez and DiPentima, the court said the lower court properly weighed the public interests behind the legislature’s nonconsensual towing framework.
The rules exist to protect vehicle owners from excessive charges in situations where towing operators control the leverage.
If complainants faced defamation or interference suits for filing with the DMV, the court said, the regulatory scheme would weaken.
The court also drew a firm distinction between this case and situations where only qualified immunity applies.
It pointed to the 2007 case Gallo v. Barile, where the Connecticut Supreme Court held that informal statements to police during a criminal investigation receive qualified immunity, not absolute immunity.
That comparison did not help the towing companies. The Appellate Court said DMV complaints under Section 14-63-45b are formal filings that trigger a structured administrative process, with investigations, hearings, procedural safeguards, and possible licence revocation.
That makes them much closer to formal complaints already treated as absolutely privileged.
The court acknowledged that defending against a flood of allegedly false complaints places a real burden on the businesses.
Still, it said the public interest in keeping the complaint process open outweighs the risk of occasional abuse. The ruling, the court noted, applies the same way whether the complainant is a national insurer or an individual consumer.
The businesses raised another point, arguing the litigation privilege should not apply because DMV proceedings can lead to criminal sanctions.
The court rejected that too, saying absolute immunity has long been recognised even in proceedings where sanctions are possible.
One other claim, involving allegations that Vaz and Capri encouraged customers to file false or inflated complaints outside the DMV process, was not reviewed. The Appellate Court said the plaintiffs failed to brief that issue adequately.
