Connect with us
tesla model s plaid totaled service center tesla model s plaid totaled service center

News

Tesla Model S Plaid totaled by Service Center employee, leaving owner without answers

Credit: Teslarati

Published

on

Update 9/9/22 12:32 P.M. EST: Jeff contacted me personally and told me Tesla has officially shipped a Model S Plaid identical to his now-totaled vehicle. “I just got a call from Tesla, a clone of my Model S Plaid is on the truck heading for Texas as I text you today.”

A $155,000 Tesla Model S Plaid was totaled several days after the owner dropped the vehicle off for a Service appointment. Now, the owner is attempting to find answers.

After dropping his Model S Plaid with only a few thousand miles off at the Plano, Texas Tesla Service Center on Wednesday, August 24, owner Jeff said he received a call on Tuesday, August 30, from an employee. “We have some bad news,” Jeff heard over the phone. “Your car was totaled.”

“I thought it was a joke,” Jeff told Teslarati in an interview. “I found out very soon it was not a joke.”

After arriving at the Service Center the next day, on Wednesday, August 31, Jeff found his black Model S Plaid in the parking lot. The rear passenger door smashed in, and visibility into the vehicle was limited due to many airbags in the car being deployed. The vehicle had been t-boned by another car traveling just two blocks from the Service Center, located at 5800 Democracy Drive in Plano. The repair had already been completed and an employee was driving the vehicle around to ensure it was completed properly.

 

Advertisement
-

However, the driver of the Model S Plaid, a 31-year-old employee of the Plano Service Center, failed to yield the right of way at a stop sign and was hit by another car. The Model S Plaid was totaled in the accident.

Initially, Jeff was interested in receiving a new car, of course, and there happened to be an exact match of what his Plaid Model S once was at another showroom in the State. He was offered that vehicle on Wednesday, but by Thursday, that had changed. Tesla said they would likely go through insurance, meaning it would take nearly three weeks to get Jeff his vehicle.

The Legalities of the Situation

Teslarati spoke to insurance experts and liability attorneys, who told us the situation in which the vehicle was totaled and determining liability is what truly matters. The fact that this is a customer’s car and an employee crashed it is irrelevant until liability is determined.

We obtained the police report through the City of Plano, which revealed the employee at the Tesla Service Center was at fault. Jeff also told us that when he spoke to the employee driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, they admitted that the accident was his fault.

The report states that the driver of the Model S was officially charged with Failure to Yield the Right of Way at a Stop Sign. The investigating officer describes the accident in the report:

UNIT 1 WAS STOPPED AT A STOP SIGN IN LANE 2 E/B DEMOCRACY DRIVE FOR PARKWOOD BLVD. UNIT 1 THEN PROCEEDED THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. UNIT 2 WAS N/B PARKWOOD BLVD IN THE RIGHT LANE. DUE TO UNIT 1 FAILING TO YIELD RIGHT OF WAY AT A STOP SIGN TO UNIT 2, THE FRONT END OF UNIT 2 STRUCK THE RIGHT BACK QUARTER OF UNIT 1.”

Advertisement
-

tesla model s plaid crash service center

Illustration of the accident: Unit 1 is the Tesla Model S, while Unit 2 is the Audi A5. Unit 1 is the vehicle at fault, City of Plano officials told Teslarati. (Credit: Teslarati)

Credit: Teslarati

The report, obtained by Teslarati, shows there was a second occupant in the Tesla at the time of the crash. The driver is 33. The passenger is 31. Additionally, the Audi A5 that collided with the Tesla was being driven by a 62-year-old who was taken to Plano Presbyterian Hospital.

What’s Next

Tesla has been tight-lipped to Jeff, saying they would be in touch with him regarding the accident within the next three weeks. Tesla may have been attempting to determine liability as its employee who was driving the vehicle may not necessarily be responsible for the accident, especially considering he was t-boned while navigating through an intersection. However, the report filed by the investigating officer determined that the driver of the Tesla was at fault, and the fact that the employee also expressed to Jeff that the accident was his fault would eliminate Tesla’s need to determine this.

Jeff said Tesla has not offered a loaner or a formal replacement vehicle currently, which makes his situation much more complicated. Teslarati reported last month that Tesla had abolished its policy of offering loaners and Uber credits for some service appointments. However, Jeff’s vehicle is totaled, he is without a replacement, and the accident did not happen while he was driving the car, or even in possession of the Model S Plaid.

As of Tuesday, September 6, Tesla has yet to contact Jeff regarding the accident or any information on a replacement vehicle.

I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.

Joey has been a journalist covering electric mobility at TESLARATI since August 2019. In his spare time, Joey is playing golf, watching MMA, or cheering on any of his favorite sports teams, including the Baltimore Ravens and Orioles, Miami Heat, Washington Capitals, and Penn State Nittany Lions. You can get in touch with joey at joey@teslarati.com. He is also on X @KlenderJoey. If you're looking for great Tesla accessories, check out shop.teslarati.com

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court

Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.

Published

on

By

SpaceX Terafab rendering

Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.

The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.

What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.

Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry

By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.

TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.

Advertisement
-

Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.

The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.

Continue Reading

News

NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way

NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.

Published

on

By

Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.

The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.

Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.

The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.

Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla uber bull Ron Baron says ‘the time to buy the stock is now’

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.

Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:

“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”

The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.

Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.

His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.

Advertisement
-

Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.

That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.

Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.

Advertisement
-
Continue Reading