Liberty Mutual has beaten a $118,290 claim tied to police-ordered vehicle storage after a deadly crash.
The dispute began after a March 1, 2016 accident in Newton, Massachusetts, when a driver insured by Liberty Mutual crashed into a pizza shop, killing two people and injuring others. The Newton police declared the scene a crime scene, impounded the vehicle, and ordered Tody’s Service, Inc. to tow and store it as evidence during a criminal investigation.
Tody’s complied, holding the vehicle at its garage under police instruction until January 31, 2019 - nearly three years later. Liberty Mutual had not ordered or arranged for the storage but did pay $6,470 for the initial towing. In January 2017, the insurer took title to the vehicle, which had been declared a total loss, with a salvage value of $3,302.
When the police released the vehicle in 2019, Tody’s billed Liberty $118,290 in storage fees. Liberty declined to pay, offering instead to transfer the vehicle title or pay its salvage value, which by then had dropped to $1,042.
Tody’s sued in the Superior Court Department, claiming unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and violation of G.L. c. 159B, § 6B. A Superior Court judge granted Liberty’s motion for summary judgment, and on direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision on June 20, 2025.
The Court found that Liberty had not been unjustly enriched. Although Liberty had access to inspect the vehicle under police supervision, there was no evidence it had used the vehicle to support any legal defense. Liberty had decided to tender policy limits to claimants well before the vehicle was released and did not pursue any claim of mechanical defect.
The justices also rejected the promissory estoppel argument. Tody’s relied on a December 23, 2016 conversation in which Liberty’s appraiser called the storage rate “kind of cheap” and confirmed towing would be billed separately. But the Court found no indication that Tody’s changed its position based on this comment - by then, the vehicle had already been stored for nine months under police orders.
As for the statutory claim, the Court ruled that G.L. c. 159B, § 6B does not provide a private right of action against a vehicle owner or insurer. The statute allows for enforcement through a lien and vehicle sale process, not direct legal action.
No insurance policy language was discussed in the case. The decision focused on factual findings and legal principles concerning benefit, voluntary acceptance, and statutory remedies.
