San Diego Man's $58,000 Nightmare with a (Salvage Title) Tesla Model S

[CliffG]

[munch]
Someone up thread made a very trenchant observation--if ANY company but Tesla were doing this, people here would be up in arms. If a GM dealer told its customer, sorry, you can't work on your own car, what would people say about the evils of NADA?

well, the difference there is that GM is in the business of selling parts and Tesla isn't - it's part of GM's (and definitely the dealers') business model, that apparently being where the greatest profit margins are. (not picking on GM specifically here - this is the industry model that many of us here celebrate escaping from, isn't it?)

I still think the supply of parts for our vehicles is severely constrained, and until that can be changed (for the Model 3?), we're going to continue seeing expensive repairs and controversy over episodes like this. When I was willing to do my own repairs, I was also cheap enough to go to the closest junk yard to harvest parts (not many Triumph dealers in the area, and importing parts from Britain via Las Vegas was not something I did easily or willingly), so I understand the desire to DIY.

 

[markb1]

An update to the story, with Tesla's response:

San Diego man has a Tesla nightmare, WATCH | CHRIS MERRILL on KOGO AM

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla only has to "fix" it because Tesla "broke" it in the first place by deactivating it.

Here's where we differ. You are assuming that it was Tesla that "deactivated" it. I am assuming the accident disabled the battery (and there's a hardware/software fuse that triggered), as that appears to be the most logical assumption to me (and apparently required by federal law according to others here).

Again, name any other manufactured product, anything, where you have to beg (and pay) the manufacturer to re-enable it if you bought it used or damaged.

Please do not mix used and damaged. There's a huge difference. This is not a case of Tesla refusing to service used vehicles. Also it's not just damaged, it was disabled. If it was simply body damage, the guy would not need Tesla's assistance.

As for "re-enabling," televisions seem like a good example. If for example you botched a firmware update and the warranty no longer applies, you would have to beg (and pay) the manufacturer to fix it and there is really no third party option (even though it is "just software").

Otherwise you would have to replace the whole motherboard, which obviously this guy is not set out to do the equivalent for this car (as it'll probably end up costing him more money than if he just bought a new Model S in the first place).

Here's an example of with a Samsung TV:
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-13973_102-520844/firmware-update-broke-my-tv/

My dad used to be a TV repair guy and he did note TVs being heavily firmware based nowadays and manufacturers restricting repairs to authorized repair personnel is the trend. Basically if you were not authorized by the manufacturer you would only be able to repair general things like bad capacitors.

Tesla is following a very similar model, with the main difference being Tesla also restricts who they sell parts to. I think that has to do with limited Tesla parts availability more than anything; the large electronics manufacturers can't really afford to do so given the volume of parts they make and risk of having too much unsold parts in stock if they restricted parts sales.

 

[MikeC]

An update to the story, with Tesla's response:

San Diego man has a Tesla nightmare, WATCH | CHRIS MERRILL on KOGO AM

My transcript of the Tesla statement in the video: "Regardless of whether or not the car passed inspection, Mr. Rutman would have been free to decide where to conduct any additional repairs and to leave with his vehicle. There was never any threat to take away his vehicle at the inspection or any other time thereafter and there is nothing in the authorization form that states or implies that we would do so."

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[KOL2000]

My transcript of the Tesla statement in the video: "Regardless of whether or not the car passed inspection, Mr. Rutman would have been free to decide where to conduct any additional repairs and to leave with his vehicle. There was never any threat to take away his vehicle at the inspection or any other time thereafter and there is nothing in the authorization form that states or implies that we would do so."

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

This is always how I understood it to be. This fool is a rabble rouser and I'm embarrassed to be in the same city as this douche bag.

 

[MDK]

Does the manufacturer have any liability once a car is salvage? I can't find anything that says so one way or the other.

At least one other manufacturer didn't want to take the risk of being held liable for "salvage" cars and scrapped 4,700 cars - most with zero cosmetic damage - because they were "tied down at severe angles for an extended period"

Mazda scrapping all vehicles aboard capsized Cougar Ace - Autoblog

And by scrapped they mean "smashed into fist-sized pieces by 1000lb hammers" - High Tech Cowboys of the Deep Seas: The Race to Save the Cougar Ace

I think it's a sad state of affairs that a manufacturer has to go to these lengths because they are worried about future lawsuits and/or future trial-by-media over something for which most reasonable people would not consider them liable.

 

[breser]

At least one other manufacturer didn't want to take the risk of being held liable for "salvage" cars and scrapped 4,700 cars - most with zero cosmetic damage - because they were "tied down at severe angles for an extended period"

This isn't even remotely the same case. The manufacturer would have been selling these vehicles with their warranties in tact. I doubt they'd have any sort of title brand at all. They'd just be normal new vehicles with a difficult delivery. Obviously Mazda would have liability in this case.

Tesla didn't sell the vehicle to this man. The vehicle doesn't even have a warranty. The only way Tesla might have any possibility of liability is if they work on the vehicle. Tesla is simply refusing to work on the vehicle without a liability disclaimer and an inspection.

Apples and Oranges.

 

[tezco]

One aspect I haven't seen discussed is Tesla's need to insure (at least from a PR angle) that a previously damaged car doesn't pose a danger at a Supercharger, either to their equipment, or to other owners at the charging site. Of course, no other manufacturer is concerned about their liability with regards to my repair of a leaking gas tank when I go visit the neighborhood gas station.

It's unfortunate that Tesla made big press offering to share their technology, but didn't extend that same offer to independent garages. Mercedes found out that they couldn't do that in Denver, and independent garages subsequently were allowed to access/purchase their proprietary diagnostic testing equipment. Tesla's current policy seems kind of two faced if you ask me. I always buy service manuals, mostly to understand how things work, rather than fixing major breakdowns myself. But this secretive/proprietary behavior is the reason that I've never purchased many Apple products.

 

[breser]

One aspect I haven't seen discussed is Tesla's need to insure (at least from a PR angle) that a previously damaged car doesn't pose a danger at a Supercharger, either to their equipment, or to other owners at the charging site. Of course, no other manufacturer is concerned about their liability with regards to my repair of a leaking gas tank when I go visit the neighborhood gas station.

They could just disallow this vehicle from using a super charger. We know they have this capability because you can just call in and pay the $2k to enable a 60 kWh Model S at the super charger.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Two items on the salvage release are a little heavy handed.

http://cdn.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tesla-salvage-release.pdf

Item 4 is the biggie IMO. Every state I'm aware of already has inspections for salvage vehicles that determine if their road-worthy. Having the vehicle's activation up to a corporation's determination of whether or not it needs repairs as opposed to an independent experienced agency is atypical to say the least.

I'm not sure if it's legal either since I seem to recall something about English common law requiring an establishment to provide service to customers... but IANAL, so who knows. I'm sure Tesla doesn't have to activate a car if doing so would pose a safety hazard, but in that case I think they may need to show activating it would pose a safety hazard.

I think item 4 needs include specific language about not activating it because of a potential safety hazard as opposed to Tesla determining the repairs need to be made for some other reason. Maybe I'm off base too. All I can dig up through g00gl3 is the ADA version of public accomodations. If the activation in and of itself wouldn't result in safety issues, but there is something wrong with the car, lets say a broken steering rack, then they may still be compelled to activate the car and let the owner/entity repairing the car deal with the broken steering rack to get it past inspection based on some state laws.

The wording on item 7 may preclude safety recalls, which seems a bit ridiculous to me. But there might be some federal law/statute that requires manufacturers to perform safety recalls regardless of any other contracts in which case it's just heavy handed.

Edit - I wonder if only letting authorized service centers perform work would fall under the Sherman Antitrust act. It could be argued that Tesla's refusal to perform certain services and sell parts unreasonably restrains competition, but they may be small enough to get away with a vertical business model like that.

 

[JST]

I understand the language about inspections (though it's unfortunate that there's no recourse in the event of a disagreement).

What concerns me most is item 6, about not selling parts--and the experience that the owner of the Stretchla had on the same issue. It seems sort of remarkable (to put it mildly) that the company would prevent an owner from buying parts for his car.

Edit: I think this link was posted up thread, but I just reread some of the replies to Otmar's blog post and found them very interesting--like the guy who wasn't allowed to buy charging adapters...

Pariah | Stretchla Blog

 

[JRP3]

As a DIY type I'm quite interested in this topic, and reading through this thread I've found good points on both sides. I do hope Tesla would at least be willing to sell parts. However I don't think their refusal to help get this salvaged product functional is unique. Right now you can buy salvaged UQM motors from Coda cars. Many of them are brand new and were never installed in Coda's. UQM will provide no support at all if you do so. If you can't figure out how to get the motors working on your own you are SOL. They won't help you with the inverter software and I don't think they will sell you any physical parts either.

Tesla is at least willing to look at the car. So let's say Tesla inspects it and sees something obviously dangerous with the pack or charger, and they know full well that enabling charging has a high probability of causing a fire. Should they enable charging just because the guy owns the car? That does not seem remotely reasonable to me.

As for state or local entities being responsible for determining vehicle safety, EV's in general and Tesla's in particular are new enough and rare enough that few individuals outside of Tesla would have the knowledge to make that determination, so at this point in time I don't think that's a rational option.

 

[SlyWombat]

I understand the language about inspections (though it's unfortunate that there's no recourse in the event of a disagreement).

What concerns me most is item 6, about not selling parts--and the experience that the owner of the Stretchla had on the same issue. It seems sort of remarkable (to put it mildly) that the company would prevent an owner from buying parts for his car.

Pariah | Stretchla Blog

Go to any Apple store any ask to buy a replacement frame for your cracked 6+, they dont have to, you buy a new one, or they will do the repair. If there is enough demand, then an aftermarket with develop by a separate company that builds the common parts (ie screen replacement). It is Telsa's brand to protect at this point, if they provided the ammo to any salvager and there was an accident, Tesla would not come out ahead.

 

[JST]

I understand they don't have to. I am disappointed that they don't. And while I like my Apple products, I don't really relish the prospect of the automotive world becoming more like Apple.

 

[Ugliest1]

"Time is nature's way of preventing everything from happening all at once."

Sheesh. Lot of frustration in these pages trying to get the new kid on the block to be where every other car company is, RIGHT NOW! (e.g. spare parts), whereas they've all had decades to get there. Tesla is barely a one-decade company and look at the against-the-odds success they've been able to achieve. Their current car is only 28 months old and they can't make enough of them.

Earlier post says "Give it time." Seems to me good advice before we all claim the sky will fall just because Tesla is currently looking to be the roadworthy judge at this point of their existence. EVs in general and Tesla's truly advanced technology in particular is in infancy. Yes I understand the DIY's want parts. But IMHO (per earlier posts) that's likely more due to parts shortages and/or expertise concerns AT THIS POINT IN TIME than a specific Tesla evil overlord philosophy that will remain forever. Just sayin'.

Specifically with this case, I concur with those who describe: Guy takes risk on salvage car. Guy tinkers to 99% complete. Guy wants Tesla's help for 100%. Tesla says sure, no charge for inspection, even, but sign this waiver. Guy won't sign waiver. Guy goes to the media.

Extrapolating this situation too far into the future is, IMHO, spreading FUD. I also plead: Give it time.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Tesla is at least willing to look at the car. So let's say Tesla inspects it and sees something obviously dangerous with the pack or charger, and they know full well that enabling charging has a high probability of causing a fire. Should they enable charging just because the guy owns the car? That does not seem remotely reasonable to me.

As for state or local entities being responsible for determining vehicle safety, EV's in general and Tesla's in particular are new enough and rare enough that few individuals outside of Tesla would have the knowledge to make that determination, so at this point in time I don't think that's a rational option.

In that situation they shouldn't activate the car and it should be explicitly spelled out in the contract. The problem IMO is that they contract lets them decide what they think needs to be repaired before they activate the car, not what actually needs to be repaired to safely activate the car.

I could have a salvage model S with a door that's stuck closed from an accident and Tesla could "determine" (item 4) that's a repair that has to be made before servicing it even though a stuck door doesn't affect the safety of the vehicle in a way that's unique to EVs. Based on the wording of that contract, they could potentially use any repair as justification for not servicing it.

Based on item 5, they can even refuse to service it at all because they deem certain damage as not repairable, independent of whether or not it's repairable in the eyes of state/federal agencies.

That whole section of the contract is extremely heavy handed and allows them to refuse to service a vehicle based on their own subjective idea of what needs to be repaired as opposed to the objective opinion of a state/federal agency. Of course certain EV components may not be something that those agencies can inspect, and Tesla should have priority there, but this contract gives what they say priority for all repairs, which is pretty ridiculous.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

In that situation they shouldn't activate the car and it should be explicitly spelled out in the contract. The problem IMO is that they contract lets them decide what they think needs to be repaired before they activate the car, not what actually needs to be repaired to safely activate the car.

I could have a salvage model S with a door that's stuck closed from an accident and Tesla could "determine" (item 4) that's a repair that has to be made before servicing it even though a stuck door doesn't affect the safety of the vehicle in a way that's unique to EVs. Based on the wording of that contract, they could potentially use any repair as justification for not servicing it.

Based on item 5, they can even refuse to service it at all because they deem certain damage as not repairable, independent of whether or not it's repairable in the eyes of state/federal agencies.

That whole section of the contract is extremely heavy handed and allows them to refuse to service a vehicle based on their own subjective idea of what needs to be repaired as opposed to the objective opinion of a state/federal agency. Of course certain EV components may not be something that those agencies can inspect, and Tesla should have priority there, but this contract gives what they say priority for all repairs, which is pretty ridiculous.

And what prevented the salvage guy from calling Tesla and requesting a copy of this document before he threw $58,000 to the wind? I don't see why people are focusing their angst at Tesla, which has every right to determine the terms under which it will repair or offer assistance with repairing a vehicle that it produced. Nobody is focusing on the lack of due diligence on the part of the salvage buyer. He can be completely misinformed and not do any research before buying this salvaged vehicle, and that's okay because it's still Tesla's fault?

 

[JRP3]

I'm pretty sure any company can refuse to service any product that is out of warranty for any reason. I had a Sears shop vac that stopped working, took it to a Sears service center, they took it apart and looked at it, said they couldn't fix it. It was out of warranty so I could not get a free replacement. I took it home, dug into it a bit further, found a broken lead in the motor, soldered it and got it working. It's still working 15+ years later. So the product was repairable, Sears just didn't want to do it, for whatever reason. This guy took a gamble on a wrecked car, Tesla might even help him out, if he lets them look at it, but they don't have to help him out. If he doesn't want them to look at it then he has to find a way to hack it himself. That's the gamble. Your "stuck door" scenario may seem minor to you, and it may be, but Tesla may look at it and see something else more structurally unsound which is causing the door to stick, or they may see the stuck door as grounds for a lawsuit if someone later becomes trapped in the car after Tesla signs off on it without fixing it.

 

[brianman]

Nobody is focusing on the lack of due diligence on the part of the salvage buyer. He can be completely misinformed and not do any research before buying this salvaged vehicle, and that's okay because it's still Tesla's fault?

And if you're in Tesla's shoes, someone approaching Tesla with this track record is scary from a "what's about to happen next" perspective.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I'm going to play my teensy, weensy violin for the poor salvage guy who is being so taken advantage of by the onerous Tesla Motors.

What a ridiculous story.