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

[tga]

Help me connect the dots. How does this situation affect me, as an owner of a Tesla?

When insurance companies total a vehicle and pay out for the loss, they sell of the remains with a salvage title to recoup some of their losses.

A few more of these stories, and the market for salvage Teslas will dry up faster than the Sahara.

If insurance companies can't recoup some of their losses through a salvage sale, the only thing left to mitigate their risk is to crank the snot out of Tesla owners' rates.

 

[mhpr262]

As it is the guy can't even use his Model S in a demolition derby. Tesla should turn his car on and repair it if the customer wants to pay good money for it. If they deem the car not roadworthy for public roads they should have the car display a clear, undeletable message on the instrument panel screen saying just that, also that they decline all liability and the car is operated at the owner's risk. It is up to the owner then what he makes of it, he can drive the car on his private property or racetracks as much as he wants but he can't get it plated or foist it off on another buyer. I would consider that a fair and honest way of dealing with customers in such a situation.

 

[Evbwcaer]

How does this story relate to the dealership/NADA dispute? Couldn't a manufacturer require their dealerships not to repair salvage cars, for example? Along these lines, I feel the story is that there are no independent Tesla service/repair shops, not the Tesla dealership model.

The next story would be if it legal for Tesla to be disabling functions on a car that they don't own and don't have permission to mess with. This guy should hire a hacker and cut the wire to the 3G receiver

 

[scaesare]

I have to say that this is one are where I'm not sure I quite agree with Tesla's policies as I currently understand them, which is admittedly based on limited information.

As was mentioned, the terms of liability release are important. If there really is a clause that states Tesla can confiscate the car with no compensation, then that's outright unacceptable.

However, as others have pointed out, repair and state-certified inspection is possible outside Tesla's purview, yet they disallow it. What's more they are reportedly refusing to even allow a person to even enable the hardware they own, or apparently sell them parts.

What authority should Tesla have to tell a person they can't this for the exercise... or to use it on private property (unlikely, but it illustrates the point).

Part of my opinion on this is based on Otmar's Experience wherein he was undertaking a salvage repair of a Model S in an extremely responsible way, with the subsequent plans to use the drive-train parts for another project. Tesla Corporate ultimately directed local service centers to not sell him parts, and there's reason to believe he could face similar roadblocks in getting the car to supercharge. It could perhaps even be disabled over the air.

I think reasonable support of 3rd party repair is ultimately going to be necessary. Sell the parts at least.. but if ultimately they will not (or can not), then remotely disabling a vehicle that may have been repaired elsewhere seems onerous. There should be no liability to Tesla for a (salvaged) vehicle that was repaired elsewhere and passed certified inspection.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If found a link to a May 2014 Tesla salvage waiver:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1305093/tesla-salvage-release.txt

Doesn't look onerous to me, as long as you can pay Tesla to examine the vehicle before you buy it.

 

[tga]

Only Tesla is qualified to determine if the car is roadworthy.

Why? We don't say only Chevy is qualified to determine if a repaired Malibu with a salvage title is roadworthy. At least here in MA, it's up to the state to decide:

RMV - Salvage Inspections

Would you say the same thing about a Roadster? What about an Elise? Is only Lotus qualified to determine roadworthiness of a salvage-titled Elise?

The owner certainly isn't.

Well, we don't know his background - he may own a bodyshop.

I get that Tesla has a vested interest in protecting it's brand from bad PR caused by a poorly-repaired salvage car plowing into a school bus, but stories like this aren't helping the brand, either (and probably help the NADA, as RobStark mentioned).

Another way to look at it - I just changed rear brakes and outer ball joints on my 11 year old Mini Cooper S. If I bought a used, out of warranty Roadster, will Tesla sell me brake pads and ball joints? I'm certainly qualified to do that work. I'd be pretty pissed if they won't let me fix my own out of warranty car.

 

[techmaven]

It seems to me the biggest risk for the buyer in signing that waiver is the cost of the inspection. If the car passes the inspection, then Tesla is willing to service it. If it doesn't, then the car has to be fixed and likely by a certified body shop. In the little bits I have learned, Tesla's certification is very strict.

It seems to me that the real effect on the insurance scenario is reducing the likelihood of declaring total loss. That's actually a good thing if you trust the repair process which seems to be more like a rebuilding process.

 

[scaesare]

If found a link to a May 2014 Tesla salvage waiver:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1305093/tesla-salvage-release.txt

Doesn't look onerous to me, as long as you can pay Tesla to examine the vehicle before you buy it.

I agree, it doesn't seem to state anywhere in it that they can confiscate the car, etc...

I would like to know if, "if Tesla determines that sufficient repairs cannot be made to the Salvage Vehicle, Tesla will not service the Salvage Vehicle" includes refusing to allow it to Supercharge or even enable operation via the 3G connection.

I would also like to see the issue of refusing to sell parts relaxed.

But it doesn't seem to be what that story above in the media makes it out to be (I am Jack's complete lack of surprise)...

 

[tga]

If found a link to a May 2014 Tesla salvage waiver:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1305093/tesla-salvage-release.txt

Doesn't look onerous to me, as long as you can pay Tesla to examine the vehicle before you buy it.

It looks like pieces of that doc are missing. It jumps from section 3 to section 6 (no 4 or 5).

IANAL, but, if I were the owner, I wouldn't sign it either:

if Tesla determines that repairs must be made to the Salvage Vehicle, Tesla will not service the Salvage Vehicle until you repair the Salvage Vehicle to Tesla?s satisfaction pursuant to a subsequent impaction.

That leaves a huge hole - the terms of the inspection are not defined up front. Tesla can arbitrarily, unilaterally decide the terms of the inspection, at any time, differently for each case. If they don't want the car on the road, they can raise the bar to unobtainable heights.

if Tesla determines that sufficient repairs cannot be made to the Salvage Vehicle, Tesla will not
service the Salvage Vehicle;


(6) Tesla will not sell any vehicle replacement parts directly to you or any non-Tesla certified body
shop;

And if they arbitrarily decide it can't be fixed (or they don't want it fixed), they won't fix it, and won't let you, or a non-certified body shop, have the parts to fix it. And you can bet a certified shop won't risk losing certification by taking your business.

(7) you release and discharge Tesla and any and all of its past, present and future entities, {etc, etc, etc.}

And if you don't like the fact that they failed the inspection, you've signed away all legal recourse. Not even the option for arbitration. Don't like their decision? Too bad; you screwed yourself by signing the doc.

"The document they wanted me to sign didn't indicate they were going to do any repairs to the car, or get it up and running," he said. "They can take the car. They can keep it. They can do whatever they want with it."

It don't see how they can keep the car, or "do what every they want with it", but they can render it worthless, and the waiver revokes his rights to sue. So yeah, by signing it, he could very easily end up with nothing. Which is worse than Tesla keeping the car, since he has to pay someone to haul away that now-worthless hulk.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It don't see how they can keep the car, or "do what every they want with it", but they can render it worthless, and the waiver revokes his rights to sue. So yeah, by signing it, he could very easily end up with nothing.

Well, you can't actually sign away your basic legal rights so waivers like that just say "I have no recourse unless specifically granted by law". If people are expecting Tesla to leave themselves open unnecessarily to expensive civil lawsuits because an owner doesn't like Tesla's opinion, I don't think they're being realistic.

I can understand why somebody would have assumed that they can buy a salvage vehicle and get it fixed, but I can understand Tesla's policy of wanting to keep badly-repaired salvage vehicles off the road.

I hope this furor will provoke Tesla into a better public policy on salvage vehicles, including publicly encouraging potential buyers of used and salvage Teslas to have them inspected by Tesla service before purchase, and relaxing the policy on sales of parts with a separate waiver. Current policies are not helping Tesla's argument for direct sales. Before I buy a Tesla from Tesla I'd want to know that if I sell it later potential buyers won't have to buy blind; if I were to buy a used Tesla I'd insist on having it inspected by Tesla or certified shop. We've read reports that Tesla won't do inspection of used vehicles, but it could also be that they wouldn't do it without a waiver.

 

[Doug_G]

I have a rebuild title C6, which has a structural certificate. The DMV licensed it and it's on the road. Perfectly safe.

So if you do the same for a Tesla, they will refuse to provide any service or reactivate charging unless you sign a document that allows them to confiscate the vehicle without compensation? I'd say that's a non-starter. Not to mention something that NADA can exploit to Tesla's detriment.

 

[KOL2000]

Wow a fairly tame thread given the stupidity here. You guys flame people harder for asking a question that has been asked before.

THIS GUY IS A CERTIFIED IDIOT. Are you kidding me?? He got what he deserved IMO! This is brain-damaged on so many levels and then typical of the no-responsibility era that he cries to the media after wetting his bed.

That 50k was a MORON TAX...

 

[Plug Me In]

To me non-story without details of this waiver that he won't sign.

I can understand this guys frustration but this car is different from a typical ICE salvage rebuild. What if this guy gets the car up and running, then, after this amateur rebuild, he or some person he sold it to plugs it into a supercharger and gets fried? There are, I'm sure plenty of arguments against that type of thing happening, but who knows what happened to that car and there just isn't the abundant expertise for this type of car. in In a scenario like that, a lawyer will go after Tesla and I won't blame them one bit for holding on to all the cards.

Many years ago I was in the market for a used car and shopped around at an auto auction and decided it was too risky, and that was for $2K or $3K cars.

 

[CanuckS#69]

If there were some validation of his claims of Tesla being able to "take" his vehicle, I could understand a little outrage, but given the fact that he bought a >$100k car that was totalled and slapped an $8k repair on it, I suspect that there is more to the story than we have. I sincerely doubt that an insurance company made a $92k mistake in paying out for an accident considering that they make their money by being stingy.

Our cars are crossing all sorts of new ground when it comes to repair and change of ownership. For example, Tesla is still paying for our networking connections and providing software updates even out of warranty. The complexity of the software and electric drive systems makes it impossible at this point for a third party to work on some portions of the car. I think that sooner or later, Tesla will be expected to provide training or certification outside of their own shops to fit with existing right-to-repair laws, but there is a LOT of proprietary technology that ordinary car repair shops have no clue about. Anyone can change brake pads, but do you really want to attempt to repair a high voltage charging system?

 

[WarpedOne]

Apparently, the guy fixed it for $8k. He just needs Tesla to turn on charging capability. Or I guess pay a hacker to do it.

How do we know he really fixed it? Because he believes so?
Drive-train parts are shipped back to Fremont engineering because Tesla service centers across the globe are not qualified to do it.
And he is qualified to say it is OK? With a battery that won't charge?

Yes, he just paid 50k moron tax.
This car is to be taken apart and sold as used parts. Left overs should be sold as scrap metal and plastic.
Maybe he should sell everything to some knowledgeable person who could retrofit the drive-train and/or battery into a roadster or some other car.

 

[yobigd20]

Wow a fairly tame thread given the stupidity here. You guys flame people harder for asking a question that has been asked before.

THIS GUY IS A CERTIFIED IDIOT. Are you kidding me?? He got what he deserved IMO! This is brain-damaged on so many levels and then typical of the no-responsibility era that he cries to the media after wetting his bed.

That 50k was a MORON TAX...

in all fairness, insurance companies seem to be deeming MS's as "total loss" even for some cosmetic accidents with no structural damage. some of these cars are perfectly fine and its just that the insurance company's don't want to fork out the $$$$ for tesla labor rates and would rather just deem it a total loss as it works out in their favor since the tesla parts & labor rates are beyond insane. unfortunately they get labeled with a 'salvage title'. some of these cars just need some body work and thats it. so paying $50k for a perfectly fine fully loaded S85 or P85 with some minor body work seems reasonable and Tesla should be willing to work with the new owners to restore the software so the cars can be used. they should make it easier it least, especially when it just comes down to flipping a software switch. in this particular case I don't know where he got the "tesla can keep the car" line....

 

[wycolo]

. . in this particular case I don't know where he got the "tesla can keep the car" line....

Agree. I'm not sure Tesla's 'mechanic's lien' (if he signs the release) would necessarily trump his Title (salvage) to the car.
--

 

[AZbba]

So does Ford or GM have liability when someone buys parts and fixes up a salvage car incorrectly? What about nissan with a leaf? If there was really a big liability issue here I think it would have been resolved by now.

I think this is about PR. They learned a lot from the battery fires and the attitudes of the media. If this guy does repair it and somehow it catches on fire I doubt the front page headline will be "tesla that some guy bought as salvage and repaired himself catches on fire", it will be "tesla burns, again". People won't look at the actual facts and make their own decision (they never do) - they'll just remember tesla is that car that burns.

But, insurance rates will have to start inching up. Between the repair costs and this, insurance companies are going to need to start charging more.

 

[loganss]

I read through the posted liability document. Looks like it has a few holes or formatting issues.

Why would Tesla not sell parts even if they think the car is not road worthy? That's a huge mistake on Tesla's part and as others mentioned fuel for NADA. Any other car I can buy spare parts for, regardless of its title. I love Tesla but as someone who got into a fender bender, their parts costs are ridiculous. Over $400 for a fog light. lol ok. They need to start allowing third party vendors to create parts and sell them. What are they going to do when they're selling 200k cars a year? They'd have an even bigger bottle neck in the parts department than they do now.

 

[Larry93428]

Is not the issue here that Tesla will not continue to maintain software/firmware on a car that has been scrapped?
Would we expect the repaired car get V6.0?
I am sure that somewhere Tesla has crossed this wreck off the list of cars to accomodate.
~Larry