Committee hears House Bill 1382 bringing towing companies under dealer-services oversight; stakeholders differ on fees and language

House lawmakers heard testimony on House Bill 1382 on Jan. 21, which would add a state registration and enforcement regime for towing companies and make several changes to existing dealer-services rules.

The bill would create licensure and enforcement authority for towing firms within the Secretary of State’s Auto Dealer Services Division and moves certain trade provisions from Title 24 of the Indiana Code into a newly created Chapter 9-32.5. Proponents said the measure would give dealers and consumers a quicker regulatory remedy for disputes that are now treated as civil matters.

“Over the past few years, the division has received several complaints,” Sean Grady, co-director of the Auto Dealers Services Division, told the committee, describing problems dealers—particularly buy-here-pay-here dealers—have had retrieving vehicles from impound yards. Grady said the division expects “general compliance voluntarily within that first year period” and estimated the number of affected businesses at roughly 1,000.

Insurance industry and dealer representatives said they support the towing provisions in principle but want clearer limits on additional fees. John Zarich of the Insurance Institute of Indiana said 2019 reforms created some protections for nonconsensual tows but left room for unclear “other fees,” sometimes described to insurers as “administrative” or “pullout” fees. Zarich said states such as Connecticut maintain fee schedules and that clearer statutory language could reduce disputed charges.

Several towing industry representatives said they share the goal of removing “bad actors” but opposed the current draft as written. Carrie Driscoll, president of the Indiana Towing and Wrecker Association, said the association has been “at the table in good faith” but still needs changes to certain language. Gary Langston of the Indiana Motor Carriers Association urged stronger protections for commercial carriers, citing instances where carriers are billed large sums and withheld cargo while disputes are resolved.

Independent dealers and trade associations that testified said they favor other, non-towing portions of HB 1382, including clarifications for manufactured-home dealers, changes to the dealer-manager definition to allow managers to cover multiple locations, and removal of certain zoning affidavit requirements for out-of-state manufacturers. Melanie Goldman, owner of GMG Motors and vice president of the Indiana Independent Auto Dealers Association, told the committee that shifting towing oversight to the Secretary of State could be helpful because that office already offers dealer education and compliance resources.

Representatives from the Secretary of State’s office said they have been meeting monthly with the attorney general’s office and expect the Attorney General to retain involvement in complex consumer-protection cases; the Secretary of State’s division would take the lead on routine enforcement. Jared (Secretary of State’s staff) told the committee the Attorney General’s office was informed and “on board” with the plan for the division to handle most cases.

Committee members were told stakeholders generally support many non-towing provisions of the bill. Grady said the division has reached consensus with the Manufactured Housing Association on language to address ownership complexities for manufactured-home communities.

The committee did not vote on HB 1382 on Jan. 21; the chair said amendments are in progress and will be discussed next week. Committee members and witnesses were urged to continue stakeholder meetings to refine fee limits and registration language.

Why it matters: Supporters say the proposal would give dealers and consumers a state regulator capable of more frequent enforcement of towing-related disputes than the civil litigation route or a resource-stretched attorney general’s office. Opponents and industry groups warned that the bill’s current language needs revision on fee limits, grandfathering, and operational details before registration and enforcement are implemented.

What comes next: The bill is expected back with amendments; no formal committee action was recorded on Jan. 21.