Salvage Titles and Supercharging

[ajdelange]

I'm not sure if I agree with this. I'm pretty sure that Tesla could completely shield itself from liability via third party chargers if it wanted to; doesn't seem that difficult to do.

Your bio-bit only says "military" so I didn't realize you were in the JAG corps. Nonetheless I am interested in the mechanism that they could use if you wouldn't mind taking a minute to sketch it out. I'm no lawyer but if it's that simple I could probably understand it.

Indeed, based on the Tesla logic, there is a higher risk of a salvage title vehicle catching fire at any charging station (fast or conventional . . . yes, there would be an even higher risk at a fast charger), but they haven't prohibited slower chargers.

The power levels at super chargers go up to 350 kW. The car's chargers are limited to 11.5 kW. That's more than an order of magnitude difference.

This seems more like Tesla wanting to avoid bad publicity if one of their salvage title vehicles catches fire while charging at any fast charger.

That could be part of their motivation but from what I see of some of the suits lost by corporations it seems clear that liability protection is the major motivator.

Tesla knows whether you're utilizing fast chargers due to its software programs, but the charging ultimately is not done by software (or rather, the software isn't absolutely necessary to utilize a charger).

Again your bio does not indicate which Tesla you drive but I think you may be a little fuzzy on what happens when you charge. You plug in and data is passed between the car and the charger identifying your car. The charger then determines, based on the credentials offered, whether your car is allowed to charge. With the Tesla SC's clearly the station communicates with the mother ship which validates (or not) your VIN. If the software in your car has been modified to not respond to the ID request (I assume its for the VIN number) or to reply with a special VIN number indicating that the car is on the restricted list then the charger will not recongnize the car as being one that can charge from that station. The process is similar with a CHAdeMO charger. In fact the display on some of them shows "Valid CHAdeMO vehicle detected" or something like that. Again, if the software in the card does not respond to the chargers credentials request, charging does not proceed.

Now someone could put a packet sniffer on the comm line during charge sessions and figure out how to spoof the proper commands thus enabling him to cause a disabled car to charge. When the guy gets killed and his wife sues Tesla at least they can argue that they took all reasonable steps to prevent him doing so and the court is more likely to accept that as sufficient to shield Tesla. Sort of like the idea of putting a fence around your pool. The court may decide your fence wasn't high enough but you have a better chance than if there is no fence.

Tesla's software is not inherently implicated if you decide to charge. Note, I'm dubious as to whether Tesla can even legally prevent you from charging your vehicle at a third party fast charger, though I can't afford to be the test case.

Well they do. You could test that in court I guess.

To be sure, Tesla could decide to stop giving you software updates and allowing the use of other Tesla services if you breach agreement with the company, but to actually try to prevent you from charging at a third party, unconnected fast charging service seems illegal as an unconscionable contract.
[/QUOTE]

I hear you. What if all the other car manufacturers played this way. Ouch.

Welcome to life in the modern world. The other manufacturers do do things like this. I remember listening to some poor bastard bemoaning the situation he was in when his single marine diesel failed at sea and the manufacturer would not give him information on what to do with the fuel controller because it would subject them to liability WRT to environmental regulations. I have solar panels I cannot program and generators whose parameters I can't set.

Advertisement

 

[ajdelange]

I'm still keeping my reservation for the time being. If Tesla changes this policy by the time that it is time to move further with my order, then I'm go through with the the purchase. Otherwise, I won't, which pains me to write, as the value of my Tesla (which is increased significantly by access to superchargers) would diminish as far as what I could do/where I could reasonably drive.

I'm confused by this. You have a reservation on a salvaged Tesla?

 

[cybertruck808]

Your bio-bit only says "military" so I didn't realize you were in the JAG corps. Nonetheless I am interested in the mechanism that they could use if you wouldn't mind taking a minute to sketch it out. I'm no lawyer but if it's that simple I could probably understand it.

This seems to be a matter of product liability law, which is implicated generally when there is a failure to warn for a known defect or if there is some kind of defective design. There are other nuances to product liability law, but that's the basic gist of it. In this case, there wouldn't be an issue of defective design--especially with third party chargers but even with Tesla superchargers (any defect in the vehicle/battery pack would have been caused by something completely out of Tesla's control)--as the vehicles delivered to buyers were not defective and Tesla would have played zero role in the repair process of a damaged vehicle. Additionally, Tesla could easily warn and include terms in the sales contract or in the charging station use agreement informing buyers of the risks associated with charging salvage title vehicles with damage to the battery pack.

As far as third party chargers go, Tesla really seems to be stretching even the most extreme interpretation of the law as any Tesla owner charging at a third party station is entering into a new agreement/contract with a third party, not with Tesla. I could see if these third party companies had a similar policy for salvage title vehicles, but this looks like Tesla sticking its head where it doesn't belong.

The power levels at super chargers go up to 350 kW. The car's chargers are limited to 11.5 kW. That's more than an order of magnitude difference.

I noted that there is a difference. But the point remains that there would still be added risk with any charging of a vehicle with a damaged battery pack. Under Tesla's stated reason for disallowing salvage title vehicles from connecting to fast chargers, Tesla is taking on some risk by allowing salvage vehicles to use even slower chargers; though, as I noted, the risk from using fast chargers is even greater.

That could be part of their motivation but from what I see of some of the suits lost by corporations it seems clear that liability protection is the major motivator.

Please share some of these lawsuits. Again, this seems to be product liability issue, and I'm having a difficult time seeing how Tesla would be liable under the law, especially if certain disclaimers were made.

Again your bio does not indicate which Tesla you drive but I think you may be a little fuzzy on what happens when you charge. You plug in and data is passed between the car and the charger identifying your car. The charger then determines, based on the credentials offered, whether your car is allowed to charge. With the Tesla SC's clearly the station communicates with the mother ship which validates (or not) your VIN. If the software in your car has been modified to not respond to the ID request (I assume its for the VIN number) or to reply with a special VIN number indicating that the car is on the restricted list then the charger will not recongnize the car as being one that can charge from that station. The process is similar with a CHAdeMO charger. In fact the display on some of them shows "Valid CHAdeMO vehicle detected" or something like that. Again, if the software in the card does not respond to the chargers credentials request, charging does not proceed.

Now someone could put a packet sniffer on the comm line during charge sessions and figure out how to spoof the proper commands thus enabling him to cause a disabled car to charge. When the guy gets killed and his wife sues Tesla at least they can argue that they took all reasonable steps to prevent him doing so and the court is more likely to accept that as sufficient to shield Tesla. Sort of like the idea of putting a fence around your pool. The court may decide your fence wasn't high enough but you have a better chance than if there is no fence.

I fail to see how the software is a necessity to use a fast charger. I understand how Tesla utilizes software for its superchargers and how it uses its software to block certain blacklisted vehicles from using even third party superchargers, but I fail to see how this is an inherent requirement for a Tesla to be charged via fast charger.

Well they do. You could test that in court I guess.

I won't, but I'm sure someone will.

 

[cybertruck808]

I'm confused by this. You have a reservation on a salvaged Tesla?

I have a reservation for a cybertruck dual motor. But if the current policy on salvage title vehicles and fast chargers doesn't change, I will not be going through with the reservation due to potential limitations.

 

[Red61224]

Your bio-bit only says "military" so I didn't realize you were in the JAG corps. Nonetheless I am interested in the mechanism that they could use if you wouldn't mind taking a minute to sketch it out. I'm no lawyer but if it's that simple I could probably understand it.

The power levels at super chargers go up to 350 kW. The car's chargers are limited to 11.5 kW. That's more than an order of magnitude difference.


That could be part of their motivation but from what I see of some of the suits lost by corporations it seems clear that liability protection is the major motivator.


Again your bio does not indicate which Tesla you drive but I think you may be a little fuzzy on what happens when you charge. You plug in and data is passed between the car and the charger identifying your car. The charger then determines, based on the credentials offered, whether your car is allowed to charge. With the Tesla SC's clearly the station communicates with the mother ship which validates (or not) your VIN. If the software in your car has been modified to not respond to the ID request (I assume its for the VIN number) or to reply with a special VIN number indicating that the car is on the restricted list then the charger will not recongnize the car as being one that can charge from that station. The process is similar with a CHAdeMO charger. In fact the display on some of them shows "Valid CHAdeMO vehicle detected" or something like that. Again, if the software in the card does not respond to the chargers credentials request, charging does not proceed.

Now someone could put a packet sniffer on the comm line during charge sessions and figure out how to spoof the proper commands thus enabling him to cause a disabled car to charge. When the guy gets killed and his wife sues Tesla at least they can argue that they took all reasonable steps to prevent him doing so and the court is more likely to accept that as sufficient to shield Tesla. Sort of like the idea of putting a fence around your pool. The court may decide your fence wasn't high enough but you have a better chance than if there is no fence.




Well they do. You could test that in court I guess.

To be sure, Tesla could decide to stop giving you software updates and allowing the use of other Tesla services if you breach agreement with the company, but to actually try to prevent you from charging at a third party, unconnected fast charging service seems illegal as an unconscionable contract.

Welcome to life in the modern world. The other manufacturers do do things like this. I remember listening to some poor bastard bemoaning the situation he was in when his single marine diesel failed at sea and the manufacturer would not give him information on what to do with the fuel controller because it would subject them to liability WRT to environmental regulations. I have solar panels I cannot program and generators whose parameters I can't set.
[/QUOTE]


I was looking at comparing to other automobile manufacturers if they had the ability to do what Tesla is doing. For instance, if I had a salvaged title on a Ford F-150 and got it running again after a few repairs and Ford found out about it and shut off the Electronic Control Module via over the airwaves update thereby rendering the vehicle to scrap value only and I could no longer drive it just because someone at Ford did not want to see "their" truck broken down on the side of the road. Who really owns the vehicle? F.O.R.D a.k.a. Fix - Or - Repair - Daily

 

[ajdelange]

I have a reservation for a cybertruck dual motor. But if the current policy on salvage title vehicles and fast chargers doesn't change, I will not be going through with the reservation due to potential limitations.

I still don't get it. What limitation? How does this policy potentially hurt you?

 

[cybertruck808]

I still don't get it. What limitation? How does this policy potentially hurt you?

If I own a Tesla and get into an accident and my car is now has a salvage title after getting repaired, I am limited in where I can reasonably travel without access to fast chargers. So it is a potential impact to me as an owner (or future owner). But it's this uncertainty and potential that concerns me.

 

[ajdelange]

Additionally, Tesla could easily warn and include terms in the sales contract or in the charging station use agreement informing buyers of the risks associated with charging salvage title vehicles with damage to the battery pack.

"In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles."

Please share some of these lawsuits. Again, this seems to be product liability issue, and I'm having a difficult time seeing how Tesla would be liable under the law, especially if certain disclaimers were made.

"In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn't operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman's parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn't open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen's death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case."

For more just search "frivolous lawsuits". Another favorite of mine was the California court that awarded millions to a plaintiff based on the wisdom that while it could not be proven that the defendant manufactured the drug that brought plaintiff to grief they could have manufactured it and were therefore liable.

I fail to see how the software is a necessity to use a fast charger. I understand how Tesla utilizes software for its superchargers and how it uses its software to block certain blacklisted vehicles from using even third party superchargers, but I fail to see how this is an inherent requirement for a Tesla to be charged via fast charger.

If the vehicle software does not authenticate itself to the charger the charger will not charge it. I explained that in my last post. If you show up at the front gate and don't show your pass, they won't let you in. Same deal. If you don't have a pass and buy a fake one it may or may not fool the guard. If you spoof the authentication credentials the charger may let you charge.

 

[cybertruck808]

"In September 1988, two Akron, Ohio-based carpet layers named Gordon Falker and Gregory Roach were severely burned when a three and a half gallon container of carpet adhesive ignited when the hot water heater it was sitting next to kicked on. Both men felt the warning label on the back of the can was insufficient. Words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them for the explosion. They filed suit against the adhesive manufacturers, Para-Chem. A jury obviously agreed since the men were awarded $8 million for their troubles."





"In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into GalvestonBay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn't operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman's parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 - nearly twice the legal limit) couldn't open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen's death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case."

For more just search "frivolous lawsuits". Another favorite of mine was the California court that awarded millions to a plaintiff based on the wisdom that while it could not be proven that the defendant manufactured the drug that brought defendant to grief they could have manufactured it and were therefore liable.

Thanks! Those really aren't analogous to the situation here, though, and Tesla does and could draft much stronger language to shield itself from liability. I also note that the state of the law/legislation has changed over the past several decades making such suits less likely. For instance, not only has tort reform generally capped damages, but most (if not all) states have passed legislation making the losing party in civil cases responsible for paying the legal fees and costs of the winning party. Again, I don't see how Tesla reasonably fears being liable under this circumstance, neither for its supercharger network nor (and certainly not) for third party chargers.

If the vehicle software does not authenticate itself to the charger the charger will not charge it. I explained that in my last post. If you show up at the front gate and don't show your pass, they won't let you in. Same deal. If you don't have a pass and buy a fake one it may or may not fool the guard. If you spoof the authentication credentials the charger may let you charge.

I don't dispute that this is how Tesla has set up its software. My point is that this is Tesla using software to limit/set conditions on how/what kind of chargers Tesla owners can use. But there is nothing inherent in the makeup of a Tesla/EV where software is necessary in order to utilize a fast charger. And while Tesla can set conditions on its own chargers all it wants to, it is particularly problematic that Tesla uses software that isn't necessary in order to charge to prevent its vehicle owners from utilizing fast chargers if they drive a salvage title.

 

[ajdelange]

If I own a Tesla and get into an accident and my car is now has a salvage title after getting repaired, I am limited in where I can reasonably travel without access to fast chargers. So it is a potential impact to me as an owner (or future owner). But it's this uncertainty and potential that concerns me.

Let me try to understand. You get into a major accident and your insurance company says "This car can't be economically repaired. " Even so you decide to repair it rather than take the insurance settlement and replace it?

Don't buy a Tesla.

 

[cybertruck808]

Let me try to understand. You get into a major accident and your insurance company says "This car can't be economically repaired. " Even so you decide to repair it rather than take the insurance settlement and replace it?

Don't buy a Tesla.

Except that's not how all cars get a salvage title from what I'm reading. If it was, I'd have zero concern. The process for getting a salvage title differs by state. And, in some instances, the damage can be cosmetic, with no damage to the battery pack (in the case of an EV). Simply put, salvage title does not require that there be a "total loss" in all circumstances. Some states follow the total loss standard, while other states allow insurers to set their own standards for declaring salvage title.

So if I'm in a situation where I get into an accident and my car can be repaired but still ends up with a salvage title, the end result is a major negative for me as far as being able to use the supercharger network (or any other fast charger).

Don't buy a Tesla.

That's the entire point of my OP.

 

[ajdelange]

But there is nothing inherent in the makeup of a Tesla/EV where software is necessary in order to utilize a fast charger.

I don't think you appreciate what a modern BEV is. It is a computer system whose peripherals happen to be motors, brakes, batteries etc. It would be absolutely impossible to successfully manage the charging in a Tesla without tons of software, We have talked thus far about protecting the user from potential harm related to damage to the battery in an accident. Even if there is no accident it is necessary to protect the battery from heat, cold, over charging, excess charging rate, improper charging voltage, cell imbalance and so on. It is also desirable that we have solid knowledge of how much charge is in the battery at any given time so we can tell how much farther we can go. The charging current must be controlled over time in order to maximize battery life. All these functions are done in software.

And while Tesla can set conditions on its own chargers all it wants to, it is particularly problematic that Tesla uses software that isn't necessary in order to charge to prevent its vehicle owners from utilizing fast chargers if they drive a salvage title.

As I've tried to explain, the software is absolutely necessary whoever made the charger. You may not be happy with the fact that they can (and do) turn off the authentication when they think it is unsafe to charge the car but the authentication is necessary to insure that there is a proper interface between charging equipment and vehicle. This is clearly not only necessary for safety but for billing, charging network management etc.

If this still isn't clear I really don't see any way to make it clearer and it's getting late.

 

[cybertruck808]

I don't think you appreciate what a modern BEV is. It is a computer system whose peripherals happen to be motors, brakes, batteries etc. It would be absolutely impossible to successfully manage the charging in a Tesla without tons of software, We have talked thus far about protecting the user from potential harm related to damage to the battery in an accident. Even if there is no accident it is necessary to protect the battery from heat, cold, over charging, excess charging rate, improper charging voltage, cell imbalance and so on. It is also desirable that we have solid knowledge of how much charge is in the battery at any given time so we can tell how much farther we can go. The charging current must be controlled over time in order to maximize battery life. All these functions are done in software.

As I've tried to explain, the software is absolutely necessary whoever made the charger. You may not be happy with the fact that they can (and do) turn off the authentication when they think it is unsafe to charge the car but the authentication is necessary to insure that there is a proper interface between charging equipment and vehicle. This is clearly not only necessary for safety but for billing, charging network management etc.

If this still isn't clear I really don't see any way to make it clearer and it's getting late.

You haven't made it clear, no. You've explained how Tesla uses its software for the charging process. You have not proven that the software is necessary for a Tesla vehicle to charge as a matter of course. But I'm open to being convinced.

But, note, even if this was the case, this wouldn't take away from the point of my OP, so it is an interesting conversation we are having (and I appreciate the back and forth!), but it doesn't change the points of concern in the OP.

I can understand why Tesla would want to cut salvage title vehicles off from the supercharger network as a matter of staving off bad publicity (the liability argument doesn't work). But they go a step too far with the limitation on third party chargers. Simply put, why does Tesla care if I use a third party charger? From where I stand, Tesla has no legitimate reason to use its software to prevent me from using a third party charger.

 

[Newton]

interesting stuff, Ill ask a lawyer coworker about this, see what he says.
Although hes a patent attorney, in silicon valley.

 

[ajdelange]

OK. If software is unnecessary let's try thinking about a charging system that didn't use it. You approach a terminal you wish to charge from. There is a handset. You pick it up and hear instructions (lets let the charging network operator have software even if we can't) to enter your VIN number and a PIN on the keypad. For a non Tesla charger the voice asks for a credit card number and PIN. The distant computer determines that your car is capable of being charged by this charger and that you are authorized to charge and directs you to plug in the wand. The voice then tells you to go to the car's engineering instrument panel and record several voltage and temperatures and enter them into the charging tables (3 ring binder) in order to determine how many amps the charge would start with and to enter this number on the key pad. The voice announces "Charging started. Enter initial charging current". You go to the panel, read the current and punch that in. The voice then says "At the tone enter battery temperature readings T1 through T5 and current in that order" you do that. And so on.

Or from another perspective: the chargers adhere to certain standards so that a Tesla or BMW or Rivian can all charge from the same charger. These standards contain protocols for signalling the charge management, billing and authorization messages required for the system to operate. As is the case with any similar interface, this messaging is managed by software. It is inconceivable that it be done any other way.

Does that help? If it doesn't, I give up.