Bought a model Y that I thought had clean title and found out it was salvage

[exxxviii]

No. Did you read 11515? The only way you can claim salvage without it beping declared as a total loss by an insurance company is for you to be a self-insurer. Either $35k cash deposit with dmv or net worth over $2.2mil and 25 or more vehicles. Cars are insured, you don’t get to make unilateral decisions about them without the insurance company. Just because the section says an owner can declare doesn’t mean they aren’t claiming a legal definition. If you read the legal definition (since you want to quote vehicle code, there are legal definitions that you have to abide by when declaring a vehicle is salvaged), salvaged actually is Total Loss Salvage.

If your vehicle has not been determined a total loss salvage and you sign the form for the DMV, you are falsifying a legal government document. In the case of these vehicles, Tesla didn’t claim they were a total loss so they should be sold as a clean title. Them blacklisting them after the fact is BS. If they want to claim salvage, then they need to file the proper paperwork.

Law section

California Drivers Are Not Necessarily Required to Have Auto Insurance — Conejo Valley Guide | Conejo Valley Events

Yes, it is true, technically, the law does not state that drivers in California MUST carry auto insurance. However, California Vehicle Code Section 1656.2 does have certain "compulsory financial responsibility" requirements most easily met by maintaining valid auto liability insurance

www.conejovalleyguide.com

Yes I read that code. And, did you read that link you posted? You may not know, but there are four core types of automobile insurance: auto liability coverage,
uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, comprehensive coverage, and collision coverage. The only one legally required in CA (and most states) is liability coverage. The other three are optional. It is very common for owners of low value cars to drop uninsured motorist, comprehensive, and collision.

In this example above, you assume that Tesla has collision insurance. That may not be true. Its pretty common for fleet car operators to self-insure on collision, meaning they have enough cars that they choose to directly pay for repairs versus paying more overall for collision insurance on every car.

Not all cars are insured by collision, and if you choose not to carry collision, then yes, you can unilaterally make a total loss decision and yes, you can file directly with CA for only $15 to declare your car a total loss. That section 544(a) states exactly that "damaged, to the extent that the owner...considers it uneconomical to repair the vehicle." Nothing else matters. Car gets a scratch, you as its owner can declare it salvage. Heck, a car doesn't even need any damage, the law does not stop its owner from declaring it a total loss just because they want to. That would be economically foolish, but there is no further process required to put the brand on the title and report it to NVMTIS.

 

[Mrbrock]

Yes I read that code. And, did you read that link you posted? You may not know, but there are four core types of automobile insurance: auto liability coverage,
uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, comprehensive coverage, and collision coverage. The only one legally required in CA (and most states) is liability coverage. The other three are optional. It is very common for owners of low value cars to drop uninsured motorist, comprehensive, and collision.

In this example above, you assume that Tesla has collision insurance. That may not be true. Its pretty common for fleet car operators to self-insure on collision, meaning they have enough cars that they choose to directly pay for repairs versus paying more overall for collision insurance on every car.

Not all cars are insured by collision, and if you choose not to carry collision, then yes, you can unilaterally make a total loss decision and yes, you can file directly with CA for only $15 to declare your car a total loss. That section 544(a) states exactly that "damaged, to the extent that the owner...considers it uneconomical to repair the vehicle." Nothing else matters. Car gets a scratch, you as its owner can declare it salvage. Heck, a car doesn't even need any damage, the law does not stop its owner from declaring it a total loss just because they want to. That would be economically foolish, but there is no further process required to put the brand on the title and report it to NVMTIS.

Your state,Kent’s all read that any person can do this. Then you state Tesla probably does this because they fall into the high net worth with many vehicles provision. If you started this with being clear that Tesla is in a position to do this because of that instead of unilaterally saying ANYONE can do this, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. ANYONE CANNOT do hat you are suggesting. By your statement, everyone has either paid $35,000 cash to the DMV or has enough money and cars to self insure. That statement is 100z false.

Also you seem to continually overlook the legal language behind claiming a vehicle is a total loss. In your example, a new Tesla gets a scratch and Tesla doesn’t want to deal with fixing it, yes they can auction it off, that is totally within their legal right. What they can’t do is sign a legal document claiming the cost to repair it is more than the vehicle is worth. You seem to assume that selling a car at auction requires it to be salvage. Wrong. I agree that Tesla can send cars to auction instead of fixing or filing insurance claims. It makes perfect financial sense to do this. What doesn’t make sense and isn’t legal, is for them the claim the vehicle is a total loss. By paying the $15 and signing and filing that form, you are legally stating as the owner that the condition the car is in requires more cost to fix that what the vehicle is worth. It’s not just a random non-legal piece of paper.

 

[MP3Mike]

Your state,Kent’s all read that any person can do this. Then you state Tesla probably does this because they fall into the high net worth with many vehicles provision. If you started this with being clear that Tesla is in a position to do this because of that instead of unilaterally saying ANYONE can do this, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. ANYONE CANNOT do hat you are suggesting. By your statement, everyone has either paid $35,000 cash to the DMV or has enough money and cars to self insure. That statement is 100z false.

You are missing his whole point. The only insurance required is liability. And if you only have liability insurance your insurance has no responsibility for your vehicle and can't declare it salvage. There is no self-insurance there. That leaves it solely to the owner of the vehicle to determine, and report, if the vehicle is salvage or not.

 

[exxxviii]

Your state,Kent’s all read that any person can do this. Then you state Tesla probably does this because they fall into the high net worth with many vehicles provision. If you started this with being clear that Tesla is in a position to do this because of that instead of unilaterally saying ANYONE can do this, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. ANYONE CANNOT do hat you are suggesting. By your statement, everyone has either paid $35,000 cash to the DMV or has enough money and cars to self insure. That statement is 100z false.

Also you seem to continually overlook the legal language behind claiming a vehicle is a total loss. In your example, a new Tesla gets a scratch and Tesla doesn’t want to deal with fixing it, yes they can auction it off, that is totally within their legal right. What they can’t do is sign a legal document claiming the cost to repair it is more than the vehicle is worth. You seem to assume that selling a car at auction requires it to be salvage. Wrong. I agree that Tesla can send cars to auction instead of fixing or filing insurance claims. It makes perfect financial sense to do this. What doesn’t make sense and isn’t legal, is for them the claim the vehicle is a total loss. By paying the $15 and signing and filing that form, you are legally stating as the owner that the condition the car is in requires more cost to fix that what the vehicle is worth. It’s not just a random non-legal piece of paper.

This exchange reminds me of a funny conversation in our family's lore. When my daughter was in her freshman year as an Aerospace Engineer, one of her classmates was probably trying to hit on her. To impress her, he was trying to mansplain aerodynamic principles that their professor just introduced. Unfortunately, he was wrong. She tried to correct him, but he doubled-down, and doubled-down. Eventually, she said "I am an actual pilot; I know this."

Most of what you just wrote is either incorrect, not relevant to this situation, or both. Tesla is not legally obligated to carry collision insurance. Nobody is. That has nothing to do with $35K cash payment to DMV. All that only relates to liability insurance. And yes, everyone is required to carry liability or satisfy the self-insurance or $35K requirement. An owner can self-declare their car a salvage. Full stop.

Going back full circle, the point of all my posts is to try to help the OP and another who joined the conversation in what likely happened in the chain of ownership and reporting. Whether we agree with why Tesla does does this is irrelevant. (Personally, I think its nuts, but I have not seen their economics.)

• Tesla appears to be in the practice of disposing its lightly damaged cars at a salvage auction as salvage vehicles
• We do not know why Tesla decides it is better to sell the cars as salvage versus running them at a regular auction
• That salvage auction declares the car as salvage/junk in NMVTIS at time of sale to the purchasing dealer
• It is highly likely that the purchasing dealer knew that the cars were running as salvage and would be declared salvage in NMVTIS (this is typically read by the auctioneer in the announcements and in the condition lights)
• We do not know if the auction or purchasing dealer is branding the title as salvage
• Tesla appears to revoke SC access and warranty on the cars it disposes as salvage
• Tesla has a precedent for restoring SC access on some cars reported as salvage (either by title branding or NMVTIS)
• We do not know if Tesla has a precedent for restoring warranty on a car it has disposed as salvage
• We have three examples in this thread of consumers who bought Teslas from dealers that acquired the cars through the salvage auction and did not disclose the salvage status to the consumers
• Those consumers were surprised to learn after the sale that Tesla regards them as salvage and has revoked SC access and warranty
• So far, one of those consumers got Tesla to restore SC access, but we do not know about warranty status or the other two SC access

Based on my knowledge and experience in the wholesale automotive industry, the selling dealers above are probably culpable in misrepresenting the salvaged Teslas to the consumers. This is the critical message that those folks here with salvaged Teslas need to know. They need to handle the cars with the dealer, not IAAI or Tesla.

 

[Ivan009]

Thank you for the VINCheck® Lookup Link. It shows that was reported on the same day we have bought the car. The strange thing is that CarFax is still showing clean title.

The car was never registered. It was sold with a Certificate of Origin. It had minor damage at the back, and Tesla sent it directly to IAAI for auction. It is strange since the damage was minor, and they could have repaired it. However, my guess is that their service centers are overwhelmed, and it is more economically effective for them to quickly get rid of cars with damages and focus on current customers and selling new cars.

IAAI confirmed that the title will be salvaged, and they cannot do anything about it besides taking back the car. That would have been a good option if we had not invested in repairing it. I am trying to find a way to hold them responsible for not disclosing such important details about the car before the auction. I mean, this should be illegal; it's like selling a car without an engine and forgetting to mention that fact. I am looking into the law, but it doesn't seem that auctions are obligated by law to be honest...

 

[stopcrazypp]

• Tesla appears to revoke SC access and warranty on the cars it disposes as salvage

This is not quite accurate, Tesla revokes access even on cars that it never disposed of, based on a database. For example, the other example linked, their car got marked as salvage by Tesla after an accident, even though the insurance company never totaled it, nor did ownership change.

• Tesla has a precedent for restoring SC access on some cars reported as salvage (either by title branding or NMVTIS)

This is not quite accurate either. Tesla has precedent for restoring SC access without inspection for cars that are proven to have a clean title (two examples posted here, one the OP, the other I linked previously). Tesla has no precedent for doing so for title branded vehicles. If you have a title branded vehicle, you would need to pay for an inspection.

This thread is about vehicles that have a fully clean title, but somehow got marked as salvage in Tesla's database. If instead you have a branded title, obviously the dealer is responsible party if they presented it as clean. It's only a gray area if the title is clean.

 

[MP3Mike]

The car was never registered. It was sold with a Certificate of Origin. It had minor damage at the back, and Tesla sent it directly to IAAI for auction. It is strange since the damage was minor, and they could have repaired it. However, my guess is that their service centers are overwhelmed, and it is more economically effective for them to quickly get rid of cars with damages and focus on current customers and selling new cars.

I wonder in cases like this if Tesla does anything else with the car prior to disposing of it... Do they pull out the perfectly good, new, battery, and put in an older refurbished/failing one? (Probably not, as that is like ~5 hours of labor.)

 

[exxxviii]

IAAI confirmed that the title will be salvaged, and they cannot do anything about it besides taking back the car. That would have been a good option if we had not invested in repairing it. I am trying to find a way to hold them responsible for not disclosing such important details about the car before the auction. I mean, this should be illegal; it's like selling a car without an engine and forgetting to mention that fact. I am looking into the law, but it doesn't seem that auctions are obligated by law to be honest...

IAAI's offer to take the car back is actually aligned with NAAA arbitration guidelines in a case where a car is missing major announcements when it runs. In a situation like that, they typically unwind the car back to the seller, update the announcements, and then re-run the car. Since you declined that arbitration path, you have the car and there typically is no other recourse. I have worked with a lot of auction arbitration managers, I think they had some cases where costs of buyer improvements were pushed back to a seller, but those are rare exceptions.

If IAAI follows NAAA arbitration guidelines, it does say that buyers are not liable for work done to a vehicle after sale for undisclosed conditions not detectable through inspection, including salvage. The problem you face is that you have a 7-day time window to open an arbitration because of undisclosed salvage. But even more grey is that the car was not technically a salvage until IAAI transferred and branded the title, so their disclosure could have been technically correct. OTOH, they are a salvage auction and professional buyers would know and expect that. You for sure want to get the specific announcements on the car when it ran.

This is not quite accurate, Tesla revokes access even on cars that it never disposed of, based on a database.

This is not quite accurate either. Tesla has precedent for restoring SC access without inspection for cars that are proven to have a clean title (two examples posted here, one the OP, the other I linked previously). Tesla has no precedent for doing so for title branded vehicles. If you have a title branded vehicle, you would need to pay for an inspection.

This thread is about vehicles that have a fully clean title, but somehow got marked as salvage in Tesla's database.

Both statements are precisely accurate in the context of this thread and the examples presented here. I am not attempting to speak for what Tesla does for every car under the sun, just for these specific cases where Tesla is disposing lightly damaged (in-warranty) cars at a salvage auction. I am sure that are dozens of other use cases that could expand the scope of our discourse here, but I don't think that would benefit these consumers here who bought cars from a dealer that Tesla itself salvaged through a salvage auction.

The statement that "this thread is about vehicles that have a fully clean title" is semi-accurate. The OP started with that in the title and description because he bought a car from Prime Sales that they marketed as "clean title." However the OP and others learned that title alone is not the sole means by which Tesla disqualifies its warranty. Vehicles that "have been sold, designated, labeled or branded as dismantled, fire-damaged, flood-damaged, junk, rebuilt, salvage, reconstructed, irreparable, or a total loss" void the new vehicle limited warranty. This is independent of title status. Presumably, NVMTIS is the source of this information, but their warranty does not say. And as the OP and others also learned through the course of this thread, IAAI reported the cars as salvage in NVMTIS at time of sale. Finally, we do not know the final title dispositions of these cars. As @Ivan009 said above, IAAI confirmed that the title will be salvaged. So, it seems likely that the OP's and the other cars in these examples will end up with both NVMTIS salvage records and salvage-branded titles in their final dispositions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Both statements are precisely accurate in the context of this thread and the examples presented here. I am not attempting to speak for what Tesla does for every car under the sun, just for these specific cases where Tesla is disposing lightly damaged (in-warranty) cars at a salvage auction. I am sure that are dozens of other use cases that could expand the scope of our discourse here, but I don't think that would benefit these consumers here who bought cars from a dealer that Tesla itself salvaged through a salvage auction.

The statement that "this thread is about vehicles that have a fully clean title" is semi-accurate. The OP started with that in the title and description because he bought a car from Prime Sales that they marketed as "clean title." However the OP and others learned that title alone is not the sole means by which Tesla disqualifies its warranty. Vehicles that "have been sold, designated, labeled or branded as dismantled, fire-damaged, flood-damaged, junk, rebuilt, salvage, reconstructed, irreparable, or a total loss" void the new vehicle limited warranty. This is independent of title status. Presumably, NVMTIS is the source of this information, but their warranty does not say. And as the OP and others also learned through the course of this thread, IAAI reported the cars as salvage in NVMTIS at time of sale. Finally, we do not know the final title dispositions of these cars. As @Ivan009 said above, IAAI confirmed that the title will be salvaged. So, it seems likely that the OP's and the other cars in these examples will end up with both NVMTIS salvage records and salvage-branded titles in their final dispositions.

I bring those objections up because they way you worded them suggests Tesla can't make reversible mistakes in its salvage determination (something different from a paid salvage inspection to restore supercharging) and mixes up the difference between cars with a clean title and those with a salvage title. OP was able to get supercharger block reversed by proving clean title (as did another) so obviously clean title trumped any internal Tesla designation.

For the OP's case, still waiting for warranty status.

 

[Mrbrock]

This exchange reminds me of a funny conversation in our family's lore. When my daughter was in her freshman year as an Aerospace Engineer, one of her classmates was probably trying to hit on her. To impress her, he was trying to mansplain aerodynamic principles that their professor just introduced. Unfortunately, he was wrong. She tried to correct him, but he doubled-down, and doubled-down. Eventually, she said "I am an actual pilot; I know this."

Most of what you just wrote is either incorrect, not relevant to this situation, or both. Tesla is not legally obligated to carry collision insurance. Nobody is. That has nothing to do with $35K cash payment to DMV. All that only relates to liability insurance. And yes, everyone is required to carry liability or satisfy the self-insurance or $35K requirement. An owner can self-declare their car a salvage. Full stop.

Going back full circle, the point of all my posts is to try to help the OP and another who joined the conversation in what likely happened in the chain of ownership and reporting. Whether we agree with why Tesla does does this is irrelevant. (Personally, I think its nuts, but I have not seen their economics.)

• Tesla appears to be in the practice of disposing its lightly damaged cars at a salvage auction as salvage vehicles
• We do not know why Tesla decides it is better to sell the cars as salvage versus running them at a regular auction
• That salvage auction declares the car as salvage/junk in NMVTIS at time of sale to the purchasing dealer
• It is highly likely that the purchasing dealer knew that the cars were running as salvage and would be declared salvage in NMVTIS (this is typically read by the auctioneer in the announcements and in the condition lights)
• We do not know if the auction or purchasing dealer is branding the title as salvage
• Tesla appears to revoke SC access and warranty on the cars it disposes as salvage
• Tesla has a precedent for restoring SC access on some cars reported as salvage (either by title branding or NMVTIS)
• We do not know if Tesla has a precedent for restoring warranty on a car it has disposed as salvage
• We have three examples in this thread of consumers who bought Teslas from dealers that acquired the cars through the salvage auction and did not disclose the salvage status to the consumers
• Those consumers were surprised to learn after the sale that Tesla regards them as salvage and has revoked SC access and warranty
• So far, one of those consumers got Tesla to restore SC access, but we do not know about warranty status or the other two SC access

Based on my knowledge and experience in the wholesale automotive industry, the selling dealers above are probably culpable in misrepresenting the salvaged Teslas to the consumers. This is the critical message that those folks here with salvaged Teslas need to know. They need to handle the cars with the dealer, not IAAI or Tesla.

Ok, let’s ignore the insurance rationale, I see where you are coming from there. It doesn’t pertain to this discussion.

You still need to explain how Tesla can legally claim a small dent costs more to fix than the car is worth. They sell these cars so they have a very finite value. Just because they can fill out paperwork claiming them as salvage doesn’t mean they can do it legally. Tesla decided it is not worth the hassle to them to fix small damages and sell at auction doesn’t mean the damage is more than the car is worth.

Are you willing to acknowledge that it’s possible for Tesla to sell these light,y damaged cars at auction without them being salvaged? You say with certainty that these are all salvaged title vehicles but you have yet to provide any evidence that they are actually branded that way. That is where this hole discussion stated.

 

[exxxviii]

Ok, let’s ignore the insurance rationale, I see where you are coming from there. It doesn’t pertain to this discussion.

You still need to explain how Tesla can legally claim a small dent costs more to fix than the car is worth. They sell these cars so they have a very finite value. Just because they can fill out paperwork claiming them as salvage doesn’t mean they can do it legally. Tesla decided it is not worth the hassle to them to fix small damages and sell at auction doesn’t mean the damage is more than the car is worth.

Are you willing to acknowledge that it’s possible for Tesla to sell these light,y damaged cars at auction without them being salvaged? You say with certainty that these are all salvaged title vehicles but you have yet to provide any evidence that they are actually branded that way. That is where this hole discussion stated.

To the first question, nobody has to prove that anything costs more to fix than a car is worth. An owner simply has the freedom to report their car as salvage, and that is it. There is no special hurdle and justification defined in the law. The law is concerned about a salvaged car making it back into the wild without being documented as salvage. It is all about consumer protection. The law does not care about a car declared as salvage that someone else thinks is fine and could be repairable.

To the second question, that is exactly what I wrote about several posts above. Tesla could have run the cars at Manheim Riverside, Manheim California, or ADESA Los Angeles. All are just as close by as IAAI North Hollywood. If they had run the car in one of those three regular auctions, they probably would have netted $5K to $10K more, even without making any repairs. Instead, Tesla intentionally sent the cars to a salvage auction and had them declared salvage. That is the great mystery that none of us understand, but Tesla is absolutely free do do what they did.

The owners of two of the cars in this thread already provided the evidence that their cars are salvage. They posted their cars are marked as salvage in NVMTIS. The VIN of the first one is in the thread, so you can look it up yourself if you want to. And the second owner said IAAI is branding his title as salvage. We do not know the final title disposition of the thread starter, but same auction and same process, his title will probably end up branded salvage like the second. (I do not think that either owner has their title yet.)

 

[Mrbrock]

To the first question, nobody has to prove that anything costs more to fix than a car is worth. An owner simply has the freedom to report their car as salvage, and that is it. There is no special hurdle and justification defined in the law. The law is concerned about a salvaged car making it back into the wild without being documented as salvage. It is all about consumer protection. The law does not care about a car declared as salvage that someone else thinks is fine and could be repairable.

To the second question, that is exactly what I wrote about several posts above. Tesla could have run the cars at Manheim Riverside, Manheim California, or ADESA Los Angeles. All are just as close by as IAAI North Hollywood. If they had run the car in one of those three regular auctions, they probably would have netted $5K to $10K more, even without making any repairs. Instead, Tesla intentionally sent the cars to a salvage auction and had them declared salvage. That is the great mystery that none of us understand, but Tesla is absolutely free do do what they did.

The owners of two of the cars in this thread already provided the evidence that their cars are salvage. They posted their cars are marked as salvage in NVMTIS. The VIN of the first one is in the thread, so you can look it up yourself if you want to. And the second owner said IAAI is branding his title as salvage. We do not know the final title disposition of the thread starter, but same auction and same process, his title will probably end up branded salvage like the second. (I do not think that either owner has their title yet.)

Are all cars at IAAI salvage? I believe it has been posted that they are not yet you still insist that they are.

 

[exxxviii]

Are all cars at IAAI salvage? I believe it has been posted that they are not yet you still insist that they are.

Yes, IAAI is a salvage auction, even though they may run a few non-salvage cars. IAAI literally calls itself a "salvage auction" in their Canadian disclosure. Most of the inventory they run is salvage, and most of the buyers are there to buy salvage cars for repair shops and scrap yards. Selling salvage cars is how they go to market and how they are known by their buyers and sellers.

A salvage auction may run some regular inventory, just like a regular auction might run a few salvage cars. In the wholesale auto industry, there is a major distinction between salvage auctions and regular inventory auctions. They generally do not mix inventory, because they want to match the sellers to the buyers to maximize the sale value of the cars. A good car running in a salvage auction would not get its highest possible sale value, because the majority of the buyers would be looking for cars for completely different business. A retail dealership sending its buyers to a salvage auction would be highly suspect.

Edit: Adding a little more background info... Manheim has several salvage auctions that run almost all salvage cars. The are separate locations and known in the industry as salvage auctions, although Manheim as a brand sells mostly non-salvage cars across all their locations. Some Manheim locations have salvage auction days, and those are held on different weekdays from their regular inventory auctions. They do not sell many, if any, non-salvage cars on those days, and the buyers are totally different from the buyers on their regular auction days. Salvage and non-salvage auctions are two radically different marketplaces. The pictures of the cars shown here could easily run in a regular Manheim auction and command high value even with the damage shown.

 

[Ivan009]

Ok, let’s ignore the insurance rationale, I see where you are coming from there. It doesn’t pertain to this discussion.

You still need to explain how Tesla can legally claim a small dent costs more to fix than the car is worth. They sell these cars so they have a very finite value. Just because they can fill out paperwork claiming them as salvage doesn’t mean they can do it legally. Tesla decided it is not worth the hassle to them to fix small damages and sell at auction doesn’t mean the damage is more than the car is worth.

Are you willing to acknowledge that it’s possible for Tesla to sell these light,y damaged cars at auction without them being salvaged? You say with certainty that these are all salvaged title vehicles but you have yet to provide any evidence that they are actually branded that way. That is where this hole discussion stated.

You are totally on point - it is suspicious how Tesla can legally claim that a small dent can lead to the car being declared salvaged. When we delve deeper into the matter, it becomes apparent that the Tesla we bought might be involved in a title washing scheme. One report stated that the car was initially auctioned in New York State, but later we were informed by Norwakautoauction that it actually originated in the State of Ohio. It looks like this car has seen a lot. On top of that I see more cars being sold at exactly 2mils. How is possible almost every car under 50mils to be sold at 2mils...
I dont know what I should look for now - a lawyer or detective!!!

 

[brkaus]

Not sure there is any benefit of “title washing” and still ending up with a salvage title. But there are a handful of different cases in this thread - not sure I have them all clear in my mind.

But a dent and other problems that perhaps lead to a buyback and I can see them wanting to just sell it as salvage / as-is.

 

[Ivan009]

IAAI's offer to take the car back is actually aligned with NAAA arbitration guidelines in a case where a car is missing major announcements when it runs. In a situation like that, they typically unwind the car back to the seller, update the announcements, and then re-run the car. Since you declined that arbitration path, you have the car and there typically is no other recourse. I have worked with a lot of auction arbitration managers, I think they had some cases where costs of buyer improvements were pushed back to a seller, but those are rare exceptions.

If IAAI follows NAAA arbitration guidelines, it does say that buyers are not liable for work done to a vehicle after sale for undisclosed conditions not detectable through inspection, including salvage. The problem you face is that you have a 7-day time window to open an arbitration because of undisclosed salvage. But even more grey is that the car was not technically a salvage until IAAI transferred and branded the title, so their disclosure could have been technically correct. OTOH, they are a salvage auction and professional buyers would know and expect that. You for sure want to get the specific announcements on the car when it ran.

I totally agree that their disclosure could have been technically correct but at the end if you look closelly this is called manipulation of the facts. Here is what happened and I made them confes that - Tesla made the decision to declare the car salvaged and send it to IAAI. IAAI had to handle the sale and by law report the car as salvaged on behalf of Tesla. On the day we purchased the car, IAAI processed the papers and declared the car as salvaged to NMVTIS.
So my question is, does this look like a legal action. Because if its legal then I am in the wrong country...

 

[Ivan009]

Not sure there is any benefit of “title washing” and still ending up with a salvage title. But there are a handful of different cases in this thread - not sure I have them all clear in my mind.

But a dent and other problems that perhaps lead to a buyback and I can see them wanting to just sell it as salvage / as-is.

The thing is that most of cases Title washing fails but they had to try. Of course that is just a suggestions. Might be due to poor records...

 

[Rocky_H]

You still need to explain how Tesla can legally claim a small dent costs more to fix than the car is worth. [...] Just because they can fill out paperwork claiming them as salvage doesn’t mean they can do it legally.

Right--that is the statement contained in the law that the entity is attesting to legally in making this declaration for their car.

To the first question, nobody has to prove that anything costs more to fix than a car is worth. An owner simply has the freedom to report their car as salvage, and that is it.

That is exactly the same as saying someone CAN knowingly put false numbers in their tax return. Sure, they don't have to prove anything at the time they file it, but they are taking a risk, because if it gets audited, they can be caught and convicted of fraud for making known false statements in a legal document.

You keep saying people can just pay the $15 dollars and file a paper, so it's just a piece of paper. But filing that paper is putting yourself on the hook legally about the veracity of that statement that the cost of the repair is more than the worth of the car. If it's not, then that's breaking the law.

And I also get the second thing you're saying, which is along the lines of:
This is common practice. This is just how it's done in the industry. Everybody's doing it. No one gets hassled about this. No one checks it. Etc. etc.
But those aren't relevant to the legality just because a lot of people get away with it and enforcement is lacking.

 

[exxxviii]

I totally agree that their disclosure could have been technically correct but at the end if you look closelly this is called manipulation of the facts. Here is what happened and I made them confes that - Tesla made the decision to declare the car salvaged and send it to IAAI. IAAI had to handle the sale and by law report the car as salvaged on behalf of Tesla. On the day we purchased the car, IAAI processed the papers and declared the car as salvaged to NMVTIS.
So my question is, does this look like a legal action. Because if its legal then I am in the wrong country...

The quick answer - this is probably all perfectly legal and you are probably stuck with the car.

Auctions have announcement and arbitration rules they operate under. If they follow their rules, then there is not much legal recourse. If they commit fraud and do not follow their rules, then you might have legal recourse. Mistakes happen frequently at wholesale auctions, because they are running thousands of cars from dozens of sellers. That is where the formal arbitration process fits in. When a car is not accurately represented, the buyer has a 1 day, 7 day, 28 day, or other window of time to initiate arbitration to resolve the issue. Misrepresentation of a car can be intentional seller bad behavior, administrative error, unknown issue, etc.

If IAAI has a general announcement, like "all cars are remarketed as salvage, junk, rebuilt, etc. unless told otherwise," then you are stuck. In that scenario, a non-salvage car would probably have an announcement that specifically identifies it as non-salvage. If your car had such an announcement, then you definitely have recourse. But, if a buyer's assumption should be that every car under the roof is salvage, than caveat emptor.

On the detective side of things, was Tesla the seller, or was it some other seller? Second, from your post above, how did you know that the car was previously offered in a NY auction and OH auction? Usually that information is not available (if they did not sell) unless those were both IAAI auctions and somebody at your IAAI auction looked it up for you. Did the car sell at either of those auctions? If so, to whom? It is very unusual that somebody would have attempted to auction it in NY and then ship it to CA. That is very expensive, unless the CA IAAI auction is getting much higher values. Last bit, the 2 mile entry is a nothing burger. That is probably just a very low administrative entry because it was essentially new but the seller did not look up mileage before sharing the info with the auction (or the auction front office person did not want to look it up).

 

[Ivan009]

The quick answer - this is probably all perfectly legal and you are probably stuck with the car.

Auctions have announcement and arbitration rules they operate under. If they follow their rules, then there is not much legal recourse. If they commit fraud and do not follow their rules, then you might have legal recourse. Mistakes happen frequently at wholesale auctions, because they are running thousands of cars from dozens of sellers. That is where the formal arbitration process fits in. When a car is not accurately represented, the buyer has a 1 day, 7 day, 28 day, or other window of time to initiate arbitration to resolve the issue. Misrepresentation of a car can be intentional seller bad behavior, administrative error, unknown issue, etc.

If IAAI has a general announcement, like "all cars are remarketed as salvage, junk, rebuilt, etc. unless told otherwise," then you are stuck. In that scenario, a non-salvage car would probably have an announcement that specifically identifies it as non-salvage. If your car had such an announcement, then you definitely have recourse. But, if a buyer's assumption should be that every car under the roof is salvage, than caveat emptor.

On the detective side of things, was Tesla the seller, or was it some other seller? Second, from your post above, how did you know that the car was previously offered in a NY auction and OH auction? Usually that information is not available (if they did not sell) unless those were both IAAI auctions and somebody at your IAAI auction looked it up for you. Did the car sell at either of those auctions? If so, to whom? It is very unusual that somebody would have attempted to auction it in NY and then ship it to CA. That is very expensive, unless the CA IAAI auction is getting much higher values. Last bit, the 2 mile entry is a nothing burger. That is probably just a very low administrative entry because it was essentially new but the seller did not look up mileage before sharing the info with the auction (or the auction front office person did not want to look it up).

You are probably right. We will be stuck with the car. IAAI can make mistakes and I am sure they know how to come out of such situation clean.

When I had run the VIN at Bumper,com it showed that first it was IAAI auctioned in NY. Later when we auctined the car at Norwalk before to even know that it was reported as Salvaged, they informed us on the next day that we can not sell it as clean title since is not and that on their records is shoes frist the car was in Ohio.
On the miles side it is 100% since when you open the software it is precise. Tesla Odometers can not be manipulated usually so it is still strange to me.