So, my car was hit by lightning at the Grove City, OH supercharger...

[beeeerock]

Without the explanation of what happened, how do I know that it wasn't something that was supposed to protect against this that failed? Or what if the supercharger malfunctioned from it and damaged my car?

If the lightning didn't directly strike your car, the current would have come in via the SuperCharger. I don't think, based on the long discussion of flash/thunder timing (LOL), that anything would have been induced into the car any other way than via the cable - but I could be wrong. So you could be right that the SC did something nasty in the process. Or the current just went right through it and into your car... You wouldn't sue your power provider if your TV frapped during a lightning storm though, so unless you can prove that the SC was the cause rather than the conduit (impossible I think), you're probably stuck to accept their good will and move on.

However, if you can get the document they want you to sign, in advance, it might be worth having it checked over before you get out there for a wet signature.

I asked again on the visor and Paul said he hasn't heard anything on that. He was going to ask again for me.

Perhaps they can remove the visor and send it to California and back again... If Elon can't go to the visor, the visor can go to Elon... ;-)

 

[andrewket]

Except that tesla is the manufacturer and provider in this case, and a reasonable person would assume the SC would have protection against lightning. If not, tesla should have warnings to not charge in the rain, or even use he rain sensors to stop charging when rain is detected.

 

[davewill]

Well I don't see it as any worse than if you had had to pay for the repairs. If you had hit a pothole, for instance, and they had to fix the suspension, there would always be the possibility that in the future they might claim a steering or alignment problem was caused by the pothole. They're just having you sign so that you understand this wasn't a warranty repair even though they paid for it.

 

[brianman]

If that doesn't work out, send me a pm & I'll see what I can do.

She who rocks. --^

 

[electracity]

Props to Tesla on this, but aren't lightning strikes covered by auto insurance?

She was connected to a supercharger. Tesla is fixing it for that reason.

 

[Chris TX]

She was connected to a supercharger. Tesla is fixing it for that reason.

That means nothing. If an ICE vehicle was pumping gas and a nearby lightning strike cooked some components, the gas station wouldn't be responsible. It would be exactly the same thing if any plug-in vehicle was plugged into any public L2 EVSE for charging. Do you think ChargePoint, Blink, etc. would say "Oh yeah, we'll just take care of all that damage for you" ?

Again, this would normally be an auto insurance claim. Tesla is just that awesome, and they really want to see what a real world nearby lightning strike does.

 

[pgiralt]

That means nothing. If an ICE vehicle was pumping gas and a nearby lightning strike cooked some components, the gas station wouldn't be responsible. It would be exactly the same thing if any plug-in vehicle was plugged into any public L2 EVSE for charging. Do you think ChargePoint, Blink, etc. would say "Oh yeah, we'll just take care of all that damage for you" ?

Again, this would normally be an auto insurance claim. Tesla is just that awesome, and they really want to see what a real world nearby lightning strike does.

I totally agree with you. That said, I could foresee the insurance company trying to blame Tesla for at least some of the fault and ending up costing a bunch of money in legal fees trying to argue their point.

 

[Chris TX]

It does state this in the warranty under Exclusions:

"The environment or an act of God, including, but not limited to,
exposure to sunlight, airborne chemicals, tree sap, animal or

insect droppings, road debris (including stone chips), industry

fallout, rail dust, salt, hail, floods, wind storms, acid rain, fire, water,

contamination, lightning and other environmental conditions."

https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_vehicle_warranty.pdf

This was 100% caused by lightning, not a faulty Supercharger. I'm sure some of the paperwork Sarah will sign says something to that affect. Tesla isn't accepting responsibility, but fixed it anyway. For everyone else that has their car hit by lightning after Sarah's, hooray for insurance!

 

[EVenthusiast]

It does state this in the warranty under Exclusions:

"The environment or an act of God, including, but not limited to,
exposure to sunlight, airborne chemicals, tree sap, animal or

insect droppings, road debris (including stone chips), industry

fallout, rail dust, salt, hail, floods, wind storms, acid rain, fire, water,

contamination, lightning and other environmental conditions."

https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_vehicle_warranty.pdf

This was 100% caused by lightning, not a faulty Supercharger. I'm sure some of the paperwork Sarah will sign says something to that affect. Tesla isn't accepting responsibility, but fixed it anyway. For everyone else that has their car hit by lightning after Sarah's, hooray for insurance!

But that's the vehicle warranty. In this case, the Supercharger physically connected to her vehicle is what caused these problems. Without being connected, her vehicle would have been fine.

If this happened while charging at your house, your home owner's insurance would take care of it.

So in my opinion (which doesn't matter, just adding another point of view), Tesla should be responsible, or include a disclaimer/warning that supercharging during bad weather is not permitted. But Tesla stepped up, and took care of this, I just hope some lessons were learned here.

Does anyone know if the Superchargers have lightning detection/protection (be it 'cloud' based, and/or other commercial lightning protection systems, and yes I know there's no perfect solution)? Even the 'little' 30A EVSEs seem to have this now.

 

[HankLloydRight]

But that's the vehicle warranty. In this case, the Supercharger physically connected to her vehicle is what caused these problems. Without being connected, her vehicle would have been fine.
.

I don't think that's really been established.

 

[eloder]

But that's the vehicle warranty. In this case, the Supercharger physically connected to her vehicle is what caused these problems. Without being connected, her vehicle would have been fine.

If this happened while charging at your house, your home owner's insurance would take care of it.

So in my opinion (which doesn't matter, just adding another point of view), Tesla should be responsible, or include a disclaimer/warning that supercharging during bad weather is not permitted. But Tesla stepped up, and took care of this, I just hope some lessons were learned here.

Does anyone know if the Superchargers have lightning detection/protection (be it 'cloud' based, and/or other commercial lightning protection systems, and yes I know there's no perfect solution)? Even the 'little' 30A EVSEs seem to have this now.

I think an appropriate situation and comparison to this situation was given before.

Is your cable company responsible for damage to your TV if lightning indirectly fries a TV? The cable company installed the wires necessary to transmit data to your TV, but that doesn't make them responsible for this unless they explicitly say they will cover it beforehand.

Knowing Tesla, they'll probably use this incident to improve supercharger safeguards for cars in the future though. I imagine they already have significant safeguards in place, which is why this is the first time this has happened (especially with all of the supercharging that happens in Florida).

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

Yea, I figured this would fall under comprehensive in PA, and I keep a $100 deductible on mine... If lightning hit any of my cars insurance would be the route of resolution.
Of course Tesla would be the ones to fix it, but esurance would get said bill.

if lightning hit the house and caused damage to the car... I have the same insurance for both, so I don't care what they call it, long as they pay for it. Because I pay them to assume that risk.

 

[green1]

Is your cable company responsible for damage to your TV if lightning indirectly fries a TV? The cable company installed the wires necessary to transmit data to your TV, but that doesn't make them responsible for this unless they explicitly say they will cover it beforehand.

I work for a large telecommunications provider, we ARE responsible if our client's equipment is fried by lightning or power surges coming in over our wires, UNLESS we have taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk. As such, we install surge arresting hardware at the side of every house, and fuse links in all our terminals. These devices are not foolproof, however they limit most damage, and as long as they are in place, we are not legally responsible for any damage caused by lightning that overwhelms them. If those devices are not in place, then we are liable in the event of lightning damage.

So, has tesla taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of a surge coming through their superchargers? if so, they aren't liable, if not... then I suspect legally they would be liable.

 

[electracity]

That means nothing. If an ICE vehicle was pumping gas and a nearby lightning strike cooked some components, the gas station wouldn't be responsible. It would be exactly the same thing if any plug-in vehicle was plugged into any public L2 EVSE for charging. Do you think ChargePoint, Blink, etc. would say "Oh yeah, we'll just take care of all that damage for you" ?

Again, this would normally be an auto insurance claim. Tesla is just that awesome, and they really want to see what a real world nearby lightning strike does.

Obviously it does mean something, as Tesla fixed her car.

 

[mikes_fsd]

Obviously it does mean something, as Tesla fixed her car.

Yeah, it means Tesla didn't want a PR nightmare with an insurance company pointing the finger at the charger not the fact that lightning struck! (not willing to cover the repairs)

 

[andrewket]

Obviously it does mean something, as Tesla fixed her car.

Tesla wanted her car so they could better understand what happened and hopefully engineer solutions so minimize the chances of it happening again. Plus, think of the negative PR they would receive if this went more public, which it would inevitably do if insurance companies became involved (although for all we know Tesla's may carry lability insurance for the SCs that cover this.) The landlords of the SCs may in fact require Tesla to indemnify to protect themselves, which likely would translate to Tesla carrying a policy to hedge the risk.

 

[Chris TX]

Obviously it does mean something, as Tesla fixed her car.

An act of kindness does not admit fault.

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

Tesla, unlike GM took an opportunity to learn and improve. GM would have just said... that's a shame, then denied even making the car or that lightning is a thing.

 

[S'toon]

Small update: they're shipping out all the damaged components to California. Apparently the engineers are giddy to get their hands on everything. I'm sure they're going to do a full analysis and let me know what they find, but I wouldn't be surprised if that takes a while.

They were taking so long before you said it was fixed I was beginning to wonder if they'd keep the entire car and give you a new one. :biggrin: :tongue:

 

[andrewket]

Small update: they're shipping out all the damaged components to California. Apparently the engineers are giddy to get their hands on everything. I'm sure they're going to do a full analysis and let me know what they find, but I wouldn't be surprised if that takes a while.

Are you sure they'll tell you what they find? They fixed your car with new parts. My bet is they don't follow up.