ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR COMPLAINTS TO DMV
Complaints Filed By The Defendants With The Department Of Motor Vehicles Were Entitled To Absolute Immunity
Post number 5312
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rhDh-Z and at https://lnkd.in/gkpfVfjb and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Modzelewski’s Towing & Storage, Inc., et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company et al., No. AC 47933, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (March 24, 2026) Modzelewski’s Towing & Storage, Inc., Chris’ Auto Clinic, LLC, MyHoopty.com, LLC, and Farmington Auto Park, LLC, initiated an action seeking damages for tortious interference with business expectancies and other relief. The dispute arose after complaints were filed against them by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and individual defendants John P. Vaz and Patrick Capri with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged that these complaints interfered with their business relationships.
LEGAL ISSUES
The central legal issue concerned the application of § 14-63-45b of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which governs complaints to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The trial court examined whether the defendants’ conduct — filing complaints with the department — was protected by absolute immunity under the litigation privilege, a doctrine that shields certain communications made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings from liability.
1. Whether the complaints filed by the defendants with the Department of Motor Vehicles were entitled to absolute immunity under the litigation privilege.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the litigation privilege.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, finding that the complaints submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles fell within the scope of the litigation privilege and were thus immune from suit.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the privilege should not apply, contending the complaints were not sufficiently related to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The appellate court disagreed, concluding that the process involving the Department of Motor Vehicles constituted a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the privilege applied. As a result, the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was affirmed.
CONCLUSION
To determine where there is an effective litigation privilege is whether the body has the power to:
1. exercise judgment and discretion;
2. hear and determine or to ascertain facts and decide;
3. make binding orders and judgments;
4. affect the personal or property rights of private persons;
5. examine witnesses and hear the litigation of the issues on a hearing; and
6. enforce decisions or impose penalties.
The court determined that the department’s complaint and hearing proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature because the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles or the designated hearing officer is vested with the discretion and judgment to consider motions, subpoena witnesses, require the production of records, receive, consider, and evaluate the evidence, limit the number of witnesses, permit additional pleadings and evidence pre- and post-hearing, and issue a final decision based on their consideration of the entire record.
The Court of Appeals of Connecticut affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the defendants’ complaints to the Department of Motor Vehicles were protected by absolute immunity under the litigation privilege, thereby precluding the plaintiffs’ claims for tortious interference and other relief.
The policy underlying the litigation privilege is that in certain situations the public interest in having people speak freely outweighs the risk that individuals will occasionally abuse the privilege by making false and malicious statements.
The litigation privilege is a long-standing common law rule that communications uttered or published in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged so long as they are in some way pertinent to the subject of the controversy.
In the present case, a consumer complaint filed with the department is necessary to initiate the department proceeding that the plaintiffs concede is quasi-judicial in nature. The trial court explained that the defendants’ alleged filing of complaints with the department were part of the initial steps in the distinct possibility that the department would commence proceedings against the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals agreed with the court that public policy supports the application of the litigation privilege to complaints filed with the department of the regulations and, therefore, conclude that the court properly granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The judgment was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
The state set up a department to control and deal with disputes about the actions of people and entities involved in judicial or quasi judicial entities. GEICO, on its own behalf and on behalf of its insureds reported to the agency improper conduct only to find itself sued for defamation. The trial court and Court of Appeals applied the litigation privilege and threw out the defamation actions.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk. lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
