Bernice Pisack v. B & C Towing, Inc., consolidated with Eptisam Pellegrino v. Nick's Towing Service, Inc. and Christopher Walker v. All Points Automotive & Towing, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey considered consolidated putative class actions challenging fees charged for police-directed, non-consensual vehicle towing. The Court held that 2018 amendments to the Predatory Towing Prevention Act did not apply retroactively and affirmed the Appellate Division’s rulings concerning exhaustion, derivative immunity, and the Towing Act and Consumer Fraud Act claims. The Court reversed the reinstatement of claims under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act because the plaintiffs could not establish the required contractual or written-notice elements.

Holdings

1. The 2018 amendments to the Towing Act do not apply retroactively and have no application to the events underlying these appeals.
2. Under the pre-2018 Towing Act, a towing company could not charge for a private-property or other non-consensual towing or related storage service unless the service and fee were included on the Director's schedule or otherwise permitted by the Director's regulations.
3. The Towing Act does not require preliminary exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing in Superior Court; the private towing companies did not obtain derivative Tort Claims Act immunity merely because local police directed the tow; and the Towing Act and CFA claims were properly remanded for further proceedings, including potential class treatment depending on the facts developed.
4. Vehicle owners subjected to non-consensual police-directed towing cannot state a TCCWNA claim on these facts because they did not establish that the towing companies were qualifying sellers, lessors, creditors, lenders, or bailees in a contractual consumer transaction, or that the post-payment invoices were written consumer contracts or notices.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2018 amendments to the Predatory Towing Prevention Act applied retroactively to towing charges arising before the amendments took effect.
2. Whether the pre-2018 Towing Act limited permissible non-consensual towing and storage charges to services and fees included on the Director's schedule and regulations.
3. Whether plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit under the Towing Act.
4. Whether private towing companies acting at the direction of local police had derivative immunity under the Tort Claims Act.
5. Whether the Towing Act and Consumer Fraud Act claims could proceed, including on a class-action basis subject to further factual development.
6. Whether vehicle owners subjected to non-consensual towing could state claims under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

Disposition

other