Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey
The Court ruled unanimously that a federal trucking deregulation law does not block a car owner's state-law lawsuit against a towing company for mishandling the storage and sale of his towed vehicle.
Because the law only preempts state rules tied to the actual transportation of property, and the towing had already ended before the disputed conduct occurred, New Hampshire's rules on disposing of abandoned vehicles survive untouched.
How it got here: A New Hampshire trial court granted the towing company summary judgment on preemption grounds; the state supreme court reversed, and the towing company sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A towing company took a man's car from his apartment parking lot while he was hospitalized. He alleged the company never properly notified him, sold or traded the car at auction despite his request to reclaim it, and never compensated him for its value, in violation of state consumer-protection and bailment law governing storage companies.
The question before the Court
Could a federal law that bars states from regulating trucking companies' routes and services stop a car owner from suing a towing company over how it disposed of his impounded car?
Why it matters
Car owners whose vehicles are towed and later mishandled, sold, or lost by towing companies keep the ability to sue under state consumer-protection and negligence laws. Towing companies cannot use a federal deregulation statute as a shield against claims over what happens to a car after the tow itself is finished.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision resolving a split among state supreme courts on the question. The New Hampshire Supreme Court's judgment allowing the lawsuit to proceed is affirmed, so the car owner's state-law claims against the towing company can go forward in state court under New Hampshire's consumer-protection and bailment law.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the towing company's conduct actually violated New Hampshire's Consumer Protection Act or bailment duties — that question of state law was left for the state courts. It also did not define transportation "services" in general, only that disposal of stored vehicles falls outside them.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that the federal trucking law preempts state laws 'related to' a motor carrier's price, route, or service, but only when that law also concerns the 'transportation of property' — a narrowing phrase borrowed from a similar airline law but not present there.
- Federal law defines 'transportation' to include storage and handling, but only when those services relate to the movement of property in transit — temporary storage-in-transit counts, but permanent storage after delivery does not.
- Applying that distinction, the Court found the car owner's claims concerned only what happened after the tow was complete and the car was already in long-term storage, not the movement of the car itself.
- The Court also found the claims unrelated to any 'service' the towing company offers customers, since the state law at issue regulates storage companies disposing of abandoned vehicles, not towing operations.
- The Court reasoned that reading the preemption clause to cover post-towing disposal claims would conflict with Congress's goal of stopping states from dictating what transportation services carriers must offer, since abandoned-vehicle disposal rules don't force or freeze any transportation service.
- The Court rejected the towing company's argument that lack of a specific statutory exception meant the claims must be preempted, explaining that listed exceptions define carve-outs from preemption but don't expand what counts as preempted in the first place.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn. (552 U. S. 364)
The Court relies on Rowe's interpretation of 'related to' in the same preemption clause to decide this case.