1464
GEICO is Terminating Insurance Coverage of Tesla Cybertrucks, Says “This Type of Vehicle Doesn't Meet Our Underwriting Guidelines” (www.torquenews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
223 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

GEICO, the second-largest vehicle insurance underwriter in the US, has decided it will no longer cover Tesla Cybertrucks. The company is terminating current Cybertruck policies and says the truck “doesn’t meet our underwriting guidelines.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 87 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Class action lawsuits are gonna be a mother fucker

Part of the purchase agreement of a Tesla agreeing to binding arbitration. This means no class action suit. You can opt out of this within the first 30 days, but you have to send a letter requesting it.

How many Tesla owners do you think do that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That assumes the court finds that enforceable. Usually they do, but a few times recently, they've said it's not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's one of the nice things about the law in Quebec. Binding arbitration clauses are illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Je devrais demeneger a Montreal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    I mean in trumps court of law musk can’t lose.

    If dumpy wins, for sure no class action.

    If dumpy loses, his Supreme Court will still side with the conservative side anyway, so probably still no class action.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Steam recently removed their arbitration clause, largely because paying for a thousand arbitration cases is worse than dealing with a class action.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wow, I never thought I'd find an actual good argument for keeping independent car dealers as middlemen instead of allowing first-party sales, but here we are.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can you connect the dots for me? Third party dealers always have idemnity? clauses anyways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Presumably anything you'd agree to while buying from an independent dealer would be between you and the dealer, not you and the manufacturer, right? I don't understand how the manufacturer would be a party to the transaction.

    (It might be that I'm naive about how modern car sales work.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •