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.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Sentence for Stealing from Veterans Administration Reasonably Considers State Insurance Fraud & Arson Convictions
Post 4863
Posted on October 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In United States Of America v. Anthony Curtis Brewer, No. 26-10745, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 8, 2026) Anthony Curtis Brewer became the fiduciary for an incapacitated recipient of Department of Veterans Affairs survivor benefits and agreed to use her funds solely for her care and support without commingling them with his own.
The VA determined that he misused $67,232.33 and removed him as fiduciary in 2022. Brewer pleaded guilty to theft of more than $1,000 in government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. At sentencing, the district court attributed $53,567 in loss to him, producing an advisory Guidelines range of 15 to 21 months.
Citing the victim’s vulnerability, Brewer’s attempts to avoid responsibility, and his other fraudulent conduct — including state convictions for arson and insurance fraud — the court ...
Title Insurance Only Insures Real Property
Posted on October 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
When a Seller Advised it Could Not Obtain Title to the Home Fraud Can’t be Proved
A Manufactured Home is Personal Property Until it Becomes Real Property
Post 4862
In Dale Johnson and Rose Johnson, Husband and Wife v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and Lennar Mortgage, LLC; Low Va Rates, LLC; Sandpoint Title Insurance, Inc.; Village Capital & Investment, LLC; and David Cassel, Engineer Agent; and Unknown Does 1-50, inclusively, No. 53126, Court of Appeals of Idaho (October 9, 2026) Dale and Rose Johnson purchased Idaho real property in 2012 with a manufactured home on it. Their purchase addendum acknowledged that the seller could not obtain title to the home, that evidence of title and an ALTA-7 endorsement might not be available, and that they accepted the home “as is.”
In 2020, after a HELOC application was denied, the Johnsons learned that the home had been wrecked and decertified in 2004 and that its 2006 conversion to real ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
