News
Model S Owner Endures Insurance Woes Over Repairs
A minor accident turned into a major repair headache for this New York based Tesla owner. (Source: Standard Code)
Last month, a Tesla Model S owner documented a small accident in Midtown Manhattan and surprised the TMC discussion board by revealing that his car was to be declared a total-loss by his insurance company, Costco Insurance Agency. The damage occurred to the outside of the wheel-well, the tire and the certified shop also claimed some damage to the suspension, see image above.
From the surface, it looked to be a small amount of work but the total bill after being sent to a certified Tesla repair shop was $30,000, which included $10,000 in parts and $20,000 in labor. The kicker was that Costco Insurance initially decided they’d rather declare the car a total loss than pay $30k+tax for repair.
So the discussion on the board turned to replacement value with his insurance company and this is where the frustration started. The owner documented the back-and-forth with his insurance company and realized that it would be quite a financial hit with the replacement option. The owner originally paid $104,000 for Model S85 and received it in December 2013.
According to the owner, the insurance company had no Kelly Blue Book value to lean on and wielded its own internal formula for the car’s value. The Tesla discussion board and owner calculated a $75,000 replacement value for his year-old car, which included sales tax. The owner, known as standardcode, was not really happy with that amount due to his financing, which had him on the hook for another $70,000 US Bank for the car. There was a lot of discussion on depreciation and commenters felt the depreciate in this case was pretty accurate.
The thread generated many other related topics. Some discussion centered around the owner’s initial frustration with Tesla’s pre-paid service agreement that’s not transferrable to another car or owner. However, the owner said that after talking with Tesla Motors during this process that they would prorate his agreement to his next purchase.
Also, others mentioned on the board that other luxury cars would not have been totaled due to such a small amount of bodywork, but some pointed out that a new Model S means the ability to add recently added features (can you say P85D).
Throughout December 2014, we have been talking with standardcode and found out the ordeal was still fluid and the insurance company was reconsidering (Clean Technica reported it was a done deal). Early this month, standardcode told me that Ameriprise reconsidered and did pay for the repairs that came to $35,000.
In an email to Tesla Motors this month, the owner wrote, “the body shop was obviously good at what they do and they communicated well too. They even sent me pictures of the work constantly. Having said that I still think $35,000 to repair the damage my car had is very high and I do still think that Tesla as a company needs to worry about the full ownership lifecycle including repairs etc.”
He went on to write, “All in all, I recognize that it was Ameriprise that caused me the headaches here and wasted a lot of my time.”
Standardcode picked up his repaired car in early January and mentioned “the most important lesson I learned is to have better insurance with replacement value. I guess there’s some legal risk to it but I’d have appreciated advice on which insurance is best when I first purchased the car.”
This tale, to me, is all about growing pains for a low-volume automaker. There’s been discussion about the car’s aluminum body as a reason for the high cost for parts and also the lack of certified Tesla body shops at this point for driving up repair costs? In Chicago, there’s only one certified body shop in the metro area.
What about your experiences? What has your experience been like with insurance companies and certified repair shops?
Addendum:
taurusking via the TMC discussion board mentioned that State Farm , AllState and Geico were top rated but the website did not specify by region. I switched from Geico ( was very happy with their customer service ) mainly because Liberty Mutual offers Better Car Replacement pkg.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Elon Musk clapped back at France’s decision to withhold the approval for Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) Supervised system, projecting a clear and blunt message to French Transport Minister Phillippe Tabarot, after he publicly rejected the technology in its current form.
Tabarot outlines several concerns with Tesla Full Self-Driving in a detailed video statement, where he said, “The safety trade-offs are not yet sufficient to authorize it as it currently stands,” he said. He emphasized that FSD is not a true self-driving system and that the driver remains fully responsible.
Key issues Tabarot also brought up included allowing speeding when surrounding traffic exceeds limits and what he believes are insufficient guarantees of driver attention during complex urban maneuvers such as lane changes, intersections, and roundabouts.
Delaying the approval of FSD in France will cost lives
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 22, 2026
While acknowledging technological progress and France’s support for autonomous innovation, Tabarot stressed that deployment must prioritize road safety. He noted ongoing technical discussions with Tesla, the Netherlands, and other European partners, with further ecosystem meetings planned for the fall.
Musk’s rebuke highlights the human cost of regulatory caution. Tesla’s latest safety reports provide compelling data supporting accelerated adoption. In the most recent 12-month period, vehicles using FSD (Supervised) recorded one major collision per approximately 5.1 million miles driven, dramatically better than the U.S. national average of one crash per 698,000 miles.
Even Tesla vehicles driven manually with active safety features outperform the average by a wide margin. These figures come from billions of real-world miles of telemetry, showing FSD vehicles involved in far fewer incidents than both manual Teslas and the broader U.S. fleet.
Critics argue Tesla’s comparisons require careful scrutiny regarding reporting thresholds and fleet demographics, yet the data consistently positions FSD as a potential lifesaver. With road fatalities remaining a leading cause of death worldwide, Musk contends that proven safer technology should not face prolonged bureaucratic hurdles.
France’s measured approach reflects the broader European regulatory caution, which many, especially Musk, have been critical of in the past. However, as autonomous systems from Tesla and competitors like Waymo demonstrate superior safety in independent studies, pressure is mounting for harmonized approvals.
Musk’s warning carries the belief that every month of delay may equate to avoidable tragedies on European roads.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
Tesla stock tumbles after earnings, one of its sharpest single-day declines
