Connecticut court gives GEICO absolute immunity in filing towing and storage complaints businesses called false
By Teresa Moss
on March 30, 2026
Insurance | Legal
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently ruled that GEICO and other insurers are shielded by absolute immunity when filing regulatory complaints about towing charges.
A May 24 opinion sided with GEICO in a motion to dismiss a case in which automotive dealers, repairers, and towing companies claimed GEICO filed false and malicious complaints against their businesses concerning charges for nonconsensual towing, transporting, and storage of motor vehicles.
The automotive businesses also claimed that GEICO encouraged customers to file complaints as well with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
This includes hundreds of complaints from GEICO requesting that the DMV investigate claims of overcharging and improper charges by the businesses since at least 2017, court records allege.
According to the businesses, the complaints and claims were baseless and without justification. They allege that GEICO also made complaints to police departments and other governmental entities.
The businesses also claimed that GEICO originally agreed to charges and paid for towing and storage, but later sought a refund for the charges through DMV complaints.
Court documents state the businesses asserted claims of tortious interference with business expectancies, defamation through libel and slander, and promissory estoppel based on GEICO’s conduct.
GEICO moved to dismiss the counts of the operative complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the claims were barred by the litigation privilege.
It argued that the department’s complaint and hearing process for challenging nonconsensual towing and storage charges qualified as a quasi-judicial proceeding. And because the filed complaints and alleged conversations with customers were statements made in the course of that quasi-judicial proceeding, the litigation privilege barred the plaintiffs’ claims.
The automotive businesses argued that the statements contained in the complaints filed with the department were not made in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and therefore were not entitled to absolute immunity under the litigation privilege. They added that the statements made to the police in connection with a criminal investigation should be entitled to qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity.
In August 2024, a lower court granted GEICO’s motions to dismiss. It explained that the DMV’s procedure for investigating consumer complaints would be identified as a quasi-judicial proceeding when applied to tests created by previous case law in the state. It also found that since the procedures are quasi-judicial proceedings, they are subject to absolute immunity, and if this is the businesses’ claims were barred in their entirety.
The appellate court agreed with the lower court, ruling that participants in a judicial process must be able to testify or otherwise take part without being hampered by fear of defamation.
The plaintiffs, which are automotive businesses, argued that the court improperly equated the relationship between a towing company and a citizen, whose car has been towed, to that of the relationship between the police and the citizenry being policed, therefore confusing the need for regulation of an industry.
“We disagree,” the opinion says. “The court properly examined the public interests motivating the legislature’s creation of the regulations governing nonconsensual towing, transporting, and storage transactions as part of its analysis of whether public policy supported the application of the litigation privilege. The legislature’s motivations certainly are relevant to that determination because they reflect the public interest in encouraging participation and candor in the proceeding.”
Plaintiffs argued that complaints filed with the department are akin to statements made to the police in connection with criminal investigations, which are entitled to only qualified immunity.
“There is no benefit to society or the administration of justice in protecting those who make intentionally false and malicious defamatory statements to the police. The countervailing harm caused by the malicious destruction of another’s reputation by false accusation can have irreparable consequences,” the opinion says.
The opinion goes on to say that, unlike statements made to the police in connection with a criminal investigation, the public interest in encouraging the filing of complaints with the DMV outweighs the harm resulting from occasional false and malicious complaints.
Image
Photo created by jetcityimage/iStock
Share This:
Related
