Insurer Not Liable for $118,000 Storage Bill For Vehicle Held as Police Evidence

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has provided a definitive answer to a common question for the insurance industry: Who pays for the storage of a vehicle impounded by the police as evidence in a criminal investigation or prosecution? In a unanimous decision, the SJC held that Liberty Mutual Insurance Company was not liable to a towing company for a $118,290 storage bill for a vehicle held under a police directive for nearly three years.

The June 20, 2025, ruling in Tody’s Service, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company affirms that an insurer does not receive a legally recognizable benefit simply because a vehicle it insures (and later takes title to) is preserved as evidence. The decision soundly rejects claims of unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, and a statutory private right of action, clarifying that the financial burden of storing evidence for a criminal case does not automatically fall on the vehicle’s insurer.

The Tragic Backstory

The case arose from the tragic aftermath of a fatal crash on March 1, 2016, when a driver insured by Liberty Mutual crashed his vehicle into a Newton pizza shop, killing two people and injuring several others. The Newton Police Department immediately declared the site a crime scene, impounded the vehicle, and directed Tody’s Service, Inc. (Tody’s), a local towing company, to tow and secure the vehicle at its garage.

Police instructed Tody’s to prevent anyone from accessing the vehicle without authorization. The vehicle remained at Tody’s under this police hold for evidentiary purposes throughout the ensuing criminal investigation and prosecution, which resulted in the conviction of Liberty Mutual’s insured for motor vehicle homicide. The police did not compensate Tody’s for the storage.

A Six-Figure Bill for a Wrecked Car

The police hold on the vehicle was not released until January 31, 2019, nearly three years after the crash. By this time, Liberty Mutual had long since declared the vehicle a total loss and, in January 2017, had taken title to it from its insured.

Upon the vehicle’s release, Tody’s presented Liberty Mutual with an invoice for $118,290, reflecting storage charges of over 1,000 days. Liberty Mutual refused to pay the full amount. Instead, it offered Tody’s two options: either transfer the title of the wrecked vehicle to Tody’s or pay its salvage value, which was then estimated at $1,042. Tody’s declined and filed suit to recover the full storage fees, asserting that Liberty Mutual was responsible for the entire bill.

Tody’s Claims on Appeal

After the Superior Court granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual on all claims, Tody’s took its case to the SJC. Tody’s advanced three primary legal theories for why Liberty Mutual should be held liable:

• Unjust Enrichment: Tody’s argued that it had conferred a measurable benefit upon Liberty Mutual by preserving the vehicle. This preservation, Tody’s claimed, was valuable because it maintained potential evidence that could have supported a mechanical defect defense for Liberty’s insured in anticipated civil litigation.
• Promissory Estoppel: This claim was based on a December 2016 conversation between Tody’s manager and a Liberty Mutual appraiser. Tody’s alleged that the appraiser’s comments—including that the storage rate was “kind of cheap”—and his agreement that towing would be a separate bill constituted an implied promise to pay the storage fees, on which Tody’s relied by continuing to store the vehicle.
• Statutory Claim: Tody’s sought to recover fees under G. L. c. 159B, § 6B, a statute that governs charges for involuntarily towed vehicles. Tody’s contended that the statute permitted a direct private lawsuit against the vehicle owner for storage charges and that recovery was not limited to the vehicle’s market value.

Liberty Mutual’s Successful Defense

Liberty Mutual countered that Tody’s had no legal basis to demand payment. Its defense rested on several key points:

• No Benefit Conferred: Liberty Mutual argued it received no measurable benefit from the storage. The vehicle was stored at the sole direction of the Newton Police for a criminal prosecution, a purpose that did not benefit the insurer. Liberty’s own investigation quickly concluded that a mechanical defect was not a factor, and it decided to tender its policy limits years before the police released the vehicle. The vehicle’s preservation was, therefore, of no use to Liberty.
• No Promise or Reliance: Liberty contended that a casual conversation with an appraiser about rates did not amount to an unambiguous promise to pay a six-figure bill. More critically, there was no reliance. Tody’s was under a legal compulsion from the police to store the vehicle and admitted it had no choice but to comply with the police order.
• Statutory Scheme: Liberty argued that G. L. c. 159B, § 6B does not create a private right of action. The statute’s plain language provides a specific remedy: a lien that can be enforced through the sale of the vehicle. The existence of this express remedy weighed heavily against implying a different one.

The SJC’s Decisive Ruling

The SJC sided decisively with Liberty Mutual, affirming the summary judgment and systematically dismantling each of Tody’s claims.

First, on unjust enrichment, the Court held that Tody’s failed to show that a “measurable benefit” was ever conferred on Liberty Mutual. The SJC noted that Liberty never pursued a mechanical defect defense and, in fact, “decided to tender the policy limit to all claimants years before the vehicle was released by the police”. The Court concluded, “At no point did Liberty rely on the vehicle’s preservation in assessing liability or forming a defense”. Any alleged benefit was purely speculative.

Second, the promissory estoppel claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance. The SJC stated that Tody’s stored the vehicle “in response to a police directive, not in reliance on any promise by Liberty”. Tody’s argument that it might have acted differently was dismissed as “speculative and unsupported by the record”.

Finally, regarding the statutory claim, the SJC held that G. L. c. 159B, § 6B “does not create a private right of action against a vehicle owner”. The Court refused to infer such a right, especially since the statute provides a different remedy through the lien and sale mechanism.

Takeaways for Massachusetts Insurance Professionals

The SJC’s decision in Tody’s v. Liberty Mutual provides crucial clarity for insurers handling claims involving vehicles that become entangled in long-term criminal investigations. The key takeaways are:

1. Storage for Evidence is Not an Insurance Cost: The cost of storing a vehicle held as evidence by law enforcement is not a liability that automatically attaches to an insurer, even one that takes title to the vehicle. The benefit of such storage is for the state’s prosecutorial function.
2. “Unjust Enrichment” Requires a Real Benefit: For an unjust enrichment claim to succeed, the benefit conferred upon an insurer must be tangible and accepted, not speculative or hypothetical. The mere possibility that preserved evidence could be useful is not enough to create liability.
3. Control Matters: The SJC’s reasoning underscores that Liberty Mutual never requested, directed, or voluntarily accepted the storage services. The storage was a product of a police directive. This distinction is critical for claims professionals assessing liability for ancillary costs like storage.

This ruling effectively prevents towing companies from shifting the public cost of preserving criminal evidence onto private insurers. It establishes that in these unique circumstances, the responsibility for storage costs lies with the public authority that orders and controls the impoundment, not the insurer whose only connection is a contractual obligation to its former insured.

---

Author’s Note: In the interest of full transparency, the author, Owen Gallagher, and the law firm of ForbesGallagher represented the successful appellee, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, in the underlying lawsuit and the appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court discussed in this article.