Another Tesla fire in a garage, this time in Toronto

[Lump]

Stock markets are closed this Monday for Presidents day (if one was adding to the conspiracy theory).

 

[mitch672]

Stock markets are closed this Monday for Presidents day (if one was adding to the conspiracy theory).

correct, but they are open tomorrow.

 

[AlMc]

correct, but they are open tomorrow.

Well, It was going to be an interesting few days up to ER BEFORE this report. This makes it even more so........While I could never predict the market before, this certainly is going to make it even harder.

 

[Lump]

A fire news flash after hours today leads to a tumble during tomorrows trading resulting & 3 days of bad press...is all I am saying.

 

[Canuck]

A company doesn't offer to pay for something unless it's their fault, not even Tesla.

I understand the point you're making about Tesla appearing to admit liability if they offered to pay for the damages -- but your statement that "a company doesn't offer to pay for something unless it's their fault" is simply not true. Every day thousands of cases settle without admissions of liability (standard term of a Release) and in many of those cases there is, in fact, no liability but proving that at trial is very costly. If the costs to run a case to trial outweighs the value of a settlement (as it often does) cases will often settle, and companies will pay, regardless of fault.

I think when the full facts come to light the offer by Tesla to pay for the damage will be attributed to an error in reporting. Quite often, in order to gain access to exhibits, third parties offer to pay for emergency repairs including board-up, clean-up, and disposal, and even ALE, and that was probably the offer being made, on a without prejudice basis. Unfortunately, people like to jump to conclusions. Advanced fire investigation techniques are able to determine the cause of most fires. It's best not to speculate. We should wait for the experts to opine on causation.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

According to the article, Tesla said the battery pack wasn't involved. So that wouldn't apply.

No, Tesla said it did not originate in the battery pack. That's very different than saying it wasn't involved.

 

[ecarfan]

The headline of that article is inaccurate and designed simply to attract readers. Or to put it another way, it's bu$&sh*#. As is the opening sentence which makes the erroneous assumption that the car was related to the fire.

Quote: "“In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire.”

Tesla does not admit that the car was the cause of the fire, and clearly states that those components were not the cause.


Quote: "Shortly after the fire, seven Tesla employees visited the owner of the vehicle. The company also offered to take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire, but the owner declined."

That is just bizarre. Sounds like an error in reporting.

 

[tom66]

Is it a crime to manipulate the markets as is being proposed? If not, it should be one -- though it's probably difficult to find supporting evidence. It's not illegal to destroy your own property.

Not an investor so not sure.

 

[sub]

Does anyone see a way that the stock doesn't drop at least some in early trading tomorrow? I'm read to take advantage if it does. After what happened the last 2 times, it seems like a guarantee we are heading down in the short term.

edit - why is this thread located here? I would have never found it had it not been linked from Model S forum, should be in investors forum also (maybe it is by now).

 

[TsRocket]

The comment, where's the owners report on this website.... The Kent owner replied to the negative story. Wish someone knew this owner, and he could put in his two cents. Well, good news, some cash on the side for more stock for this Rocket as my car sits alone in a garage 1200 miles from me. I have serious doubts also on this "news story".

 

[MikeC]

No, Tesla said it did not originate in the battery pack. That's very different than saying it wasn't involved.

"In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire.”

 

[sub]

It seems to me that if the fire did not come from the car, and Tesla did send a team of 7, that they would simply say the car did not start the fire, period. End of story. Instead, they mention where it didn't start in the car. I'm only going off what the article says, of course I hope that the car was completely uninvolved and from what I can gather from that poorly written article I think that is a good likelihood.

 

[Canuck]

It's not illegal to destroy your own property.

It is illegal to burn your own house down.

 

[glhs272]

From the pictures it does seem like the fire is centered above the Tesla. If it wasn't the battery, what could be so flammable in the front of the car that it would burn that intensely?

 

[MikeC]

If Tesla came to me and said "we'll pay for everything, if you agree not so sue us," I might decline, too. Not because I would be planning to sue them, but because I just wouldn't be sure weather Tesla was culpable or not. (Note that I have no idea if Tesla actually attached strings to their offer.)

Originally Posted by qwk
This is very odd. I would bet that if Tesla pays for damages, they get to keep the car. Why would any sane person decline a sure offer? The timing and the actions of the owner seem very fishy to me.




It's more likely that he reported it to his insurer and he has an adjuster dealing with Tesla who declined the offer because they owe a duty to their insured under the policy of insurance following with they have the right of subrogation. It would be a breach of the insurance contract for an insurer to hand it over to a third party and in Canada (as well as the US) such conduct could be considered bad faith and would expose the insurer to significant punitive damages.

Could it be as simple as Elon having already guaranteed that Tesla would cover "fire damage"?

 

[FredTMC]

It seems to me that if the fire did not come from the car, and Tesla did send a team of 7, that they would simply say the car did not start the fire, period. End of story. Instead, they mention where it didn't start in the car. I'm only going off what the article says, of course I hope that the car was completely uninvolved and from what I can gather from that poorly written article I think that is a good likelihood.

Spotty journalism as usual. I'd really like to see Tesla's official response direct from Tesla and an update on what really happened to the car. The sooner the better.

What I don't understand is that if fxre didn't initiate in the battery or charging system snd these systems were "untouched" by fxre then what in the world fueled all the fXre at the front of the garage?

Bottom line is if this story is viral tomorrow thorn I want to see a clarifying report from Tesla/Elon

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Could it be as simple as Elon having already guaranteed that Tesla would cover "fire damage"?

that is a good point.
he said covered for fire damage period. no questions asked as long as it wasn't intentional, same as battery damage. covered 100%

 

[joefee]

Based on damage in photo it seems as if the fire appeared elsewhere. However, the firefighters are looking at the vehicle

Who wouldn't look at a Model S ! ! !:love:

 

[Krugerrand]

How do you know it isn't?

So, we'll assume it is? Just because?

 

[Clprenz]

I hope this catches traction... I'm not ready for earnings yet... In fact I bought some puts at $201 ( I hope to make some profit!)