Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) responded to the lemon lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin lawyer on behalf of Robert Montgomery, a customer who bought a Model S for approximately $98,000 including state taxes in March 2013.
In a blog post, the electric car manufacturer said it was surprised by the lemon law suit, and the story of the Wisconsin attorney. Vince Megna, who considers himself the “Lemon Law King” has “factual inaccuracies.” Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) pointed out that the Model S owner did not make three demands for a buyback.
The electric car manufacturer said, “The only time any such claim was made was in a legal form letter sent to Tesla in November 2013 as a prerequisite for pursuing the claim in Wisconsin. Our service team was in close contact with the customer both before and after we received the letter, and possibility of a buy-back was never mentioned during those discussions.”
Skeptical on lawyers’ motivation
Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) also expressed that “there are good reasons to be skeptical” on the motivation of the lawyer in filing the lemon lawsuit, and his claims were unusual on several counts because it contradicts the general customer experience rated by independent surveys.
The electric car manufacturer emphasized that the Model S received a 99/100 score, the highest rating for owner satisfaction from the annual Consumer Reports survey. Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) acknowledged the fact that the score does not mean that a single customers cannot have a bad overall experience, but the company said the rating makes it highly unlikely.
The Consumer Report also recognized Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) with “Best Overall” designation for its Top Picks 2014 award and the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award.
Interestingly, the electric car manufacturer noted that the lawyer also filed a lemon lawsuit against AB Volvo (ADR)(OTCMKTS:VOLVY) on behalf of the same client in February last year.
Customer’s concerns have elusive origins
According to Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA), its “service team did everything reasonably possible” to resolve the customer’s concerns, which have elusive origins, and have been in contact with him numerous times since November.
The company said the customer complained that the door handles of his Model S were malfunctioning. Even if the service team was not able to replicate the issue, Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) replaced all the door handles of the electric vehicle. The customer complained the problem persisted, and the company offered to inspect it again.
Another concern raised by the customer was the fuse of the Model S that blew several times. The engineers of the electric car tested all the possible causes of the problem, but did not find anything wrong with the Model S car. The company replaced a different part that may be related to the problem.
Despite the new parts installed, the fuse kept blowing, but the diagnosis of the car showed nothing wrong with it. The engineers found out that the car’s front trunk had been opened immediately on every occasion before the fuse failure. Tesla’s engineers eventually put non-tamper tape to the fuse switch, and since then its performance was flawless.
Opportunistic lawyers could exploit lemon laws
Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA) said it is continuing its efforts to work with the customer and it is happy to address any of his legitimate concerns with his Model S vehicle. Customer service is very important to the company and wants the “public to be aware of the potential for lemon laws to be exploited by opportunistic lawyers.”
