Vehicles: storage and towing.

Assembly Member Sharp-Collins, joined by coauthors Davies and Wahab, advances a measure to reform California’s towing and storage charges by expanding the set of presumptively unreasonable fees and clarifying how liability flows between insurers, vehicle owners, and service providers.

The proposal adds two new categories to the presumptively unreasonable charges: storage fees charged on state holidays that exceed the posted daily storage rate, and towing fees when a law enforcement officer directs removal at the scene of a state or local emergency to facilitate emergency vehicle access. It preserves the basic framework that allows storage and towing charges to be challenged and that prevailing parties may recover attorney’s fees, subject to a cap. It also maintains existing timing for notices to owners (a 15-day initial period, then a notice-after adequate days) and preserves carve-outs for certain circumstances, including gate fees charged outside normal hours only when requested and the ability to rely on written agreements with law enforcement agencies.

Section updates also reinforce an insurer-liability framework for towing and storage charges, requiring insurers to cover reasonable charges arising from accidents or stolen recoveries and enabling payment to either the service provider or the insured/claimant. Reasonableness standards rely on comparable fees charged to public agencies or on rates charged by similar facilities in the same locale, with the same categories of presumptively unreasonable fees applying to both the public agency benchmark and the local comparison framework. In addition, the measure ties insurer compliance to regulatory standards and preserves after-hours and emergency-scenario carve-outs tied to law enforcement directives.

Implementation and policy context are anchored in alignment with existing regulatory oversight, including defined “normal business hours” and cross-references to government emergency definitions. The bill’s effects would depend on dispute outcomes under the presumptive-unreasonableness framework, the frequency with which disputed charges fall into the newly added categories, and how industry participants adjust billing practices in response. The text notes no explicit new appropriation and does not specify an effective date within the excerpt, leaving questions about transitional rules, burden of proof in disputes, and the precise scope of “state holidays.”