Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Towing Consumer Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Insurance groups and public‑safety advocates back bills to curb predatory towing fees
Summary
Industry groups, the National Insurance Crime Bureau and the Massachusetts Insurance Federation told the committee that predatory towing practices and excessive post‑accident fees harm consumers and urged passage of S.2235 and H.3516 to set fee schedules and protect motorists.
Insurance representatives, consumer‑protection advocates and the National Insurance Crime Bureau urged the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy to advance legislation aimed at preventing predatory towing practices and limiting excessive post‑accident fees.
Christopher Stark, executive director of the Massachusetts Insurance Federation, told the committee the federation supports Senate Bill S.2235 (towing protections) and House Bill H.3516 (equitable towing rates). Stark said the measures would add safeguards including transparency and limits on incidental fees.
Howard Handler of the National Insurance Crime Bureau described tactics he said predatory towers use at crash scenes: arriving quickly, steering motorists toward their firms, charging high hookup and storage fees, and holding vehicles until large bills are paid. “Predatory towers will charge inflated exorbitant fees. A routine tow can quickly result in the towing bill of $5,000 or $10,000 and even $100,000 or more for commercial vehicle tows,” Handler testified, and he said such practices can leave consumers without access to required equipment inside vehicles.
The insurance federation and Handler urged a fee schedule for towers contracted by police and itemized receipts for consumers, and they supported bills that would require police‑contracted towers to adhere to state fee limits. The federation also supported H.3507, a bill seeking equitable towing rates for commercially plated vehicles used as passenger cars.
No opposition testimony on these bills was recorded in the transcript excerpts; the committee did not vote. Witnesses said they would file written testimony.
