OFFER OF SETTLEMENT
Robert G. Montgomery Family Trust v. Tesla Motors, Inc.
April 15, 2014
It is disturbing that Tesla Motors, without basis in law or fact, accuses its customer of tampering with a fuse in order to gain advantage under the Wisconsin Lemon Law. This tactic is effective in social media where my client’s character has been brutally attacked. However, in the courtroom, meritless allegations will be replaced by Tesla’s own confirmation of vehicle problems and 66 days in the repair shop. Tesla knows this!
I expect to be called “a douchebag attorney”– people hate lawyers. But when my client – a medical doctor who cared for U.S. soldiers in war – gets the same onslaught, that’s when the line is drawn. After all, all he ever asked for was a refund for a bad car.
Tesla says, “we believe in lemon laws,” yet never responded to his three lemon law notices. Once he hires an attorney, however, he’s publically charged with intentionally causing the problems.
Tesla Motors is an innovative company. But as with any auto manufacturer, things don’t always go as planned. Recently Toyota was fined 1.2 Billion for covering up its unintended acceleration problem. And GM is dealing with 13 deaths due to defective Cobalts. Tomorrow, maybe Tesla will buy back a lemon.
The following repairs were performed by Tesla on the Plaintiff’s vehicle under the Tesla WARRANTY and are documented on 14 separate Tesla Invoices:
12 V Battery replaced – 3 times; lower dash harness, left hand body harness, and main fuse box replaced; right side steering wheel controls found inoperative; replaced airbag assembly with control switches; fuse for contactor power blown; HV junction box and Master Charger installed per service support request; battery coolant pump #1 intermittently stopping, replaced coolant pump #1; per engineering, all 3 coolant pumps need replacing, all 3 replaced; replaced all door handles with Generation II handles; inspect Knuckle/Ball Joint Surfaces, install 4 Front Lower Control Arm Washers; Safety Recall: NEMA 14-50 adapter for Universal Mobile Connector (UMC) could overheat and result in increased risk of burn injury and/or fire; vehicle stopped charging at home, new UMC sent to customer for possible resolution; UMC reboots when using navigation, verified; engineering performed reset which did not resolve concern, verified result of firmware anomaly that would be resolved remotely once correction is installed.
For the above stated reasons, the Plaintiff, by his attorney Vince Megna, publically offers to settle this matter on the following terms.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT OFFER
· Tesla Motors will refund to the Plaintiff the sum of $108,600. Said sum includes purchase price, taxes, parcel shelf, paint armor, delivery, title and registration, 4 year service plan, tire replacement program, seat covers, Pivelli Winter tires and wheels, and floor mats;
· Upon receipt of said sum, the Plaintiff will return the 2013 Model S that is the subject of this action to a Chicago land Tesla Service Center, as instructed by Tesla;
· Tesla Motors will pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees and costs as determined by the court;
· Upon receipt of all payments herein, the case will be dismissed on its merits, with prejudice; and
· The plaintiff will not sign any type of confidentiality, hold harmless or indemnification agreement or provision.
This offer will be held open until April 22, 2014, 5:00 p.m. CST. If same is not accepted by such date, said offer will be withdrawn in its entirety and the case will continue.
Attorney for Plaintiff