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.