Geico Tesla Vehicle Repair Lawsuits

Investigating Insurance Coverage Disputes Over OEM Parts and Out-of-Pocket Repair Costs

Tesla vehicles are engineered to require Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts and Tesla-approved repair procedures after a collision. But some Tesla owners report that their insurers, including Geico, have refused to cover the full cost of those OEM repairs, instead approving lower-cost aftermarket parts or capping reimbursement at non-OEM rates.  However, what many vehicle owners discover is that there are no repair shops that are willing to install non-OEM parts in Tesla vehicles.

This alleged gap between Tesla’s repair requirements and certain claims-handling practices can leave owners paying significantly more than their deductible to repair their vehicle.

Kershaw Talley Barlow is investigating potential claims from Tesla owners nationwide involving GEICO’s handling of manufacturer-required repair costs, including situations where owners report being forced to pay more than their deductible to obtain OEM repairs.

If you own a Tesla and were required to pay more than your deductible after a collision to obtain proper OEM repairs, we want to hear from you. Call (916) 520-6639 or contact us online for a free, confidential consultation. We are reviewing cases nationwide.

Why Choose Kershaw Talley Barlow?

Insurance coverage disputes involving advanced vehicles like Tesla are not minor billing disagreements. They often turn on technical repair standards, policy language, manufacturer requirements, and systemic claims-handling practices.

When you’re dealing with a national insurer like GEICO, experience and resources matter.

Clients choose Kershaw Talley Barlow because we offer:

• Over $1 Billion Recovered in verdicts and settlements
• 100+ Years of Combined Experience in complex, high-stakes litigation
• Proven Results Against Major Corporate Defendants
• Scientific & Technical Expertise through our in-house attorney-scientists who help build evidence-driven cases
• Free Consultations and Contingency Representation — no fees unless we recover compensation

Proven Results in Complex Corporate Litigation

We have litigated large-scale disputes against some of the country’s most well-funded corporate entities and understand how to build proof-driven cases that withstand aggressive defense tactics. Examples of our results include:

• $390 Million – American Honda Motor Co. (MDL-related settlement)
• $211 Million – BMW of North America, LLC (class action settlement)
• $87 Million – United Parcel Service, Inc. (class action settlement)
• $45 Million – Ford Motor Company (jury verdict and judgment)

The Core Issue: Tesla OEM Requirements vs. Insurance Payout Practices

Tesla repair requirements commonly emphasize items such as:

• Use of OEM parts for specific repairs and replacements
• Tesla-approved repair procedures and documentation standards
• Calibration and validation for integrated safety and driver-assistance systems
• Vehicle-specific considerations that can affect repair methodology and parts selection

OEM parts are manufactured by Tesla specifically for its vehicles. Aftermarket or non-OEM parts are typically not available and no reputable repair shop is willing to use them.

However, many auto insurance policies, including policies issued by GEICO, may allow the insurer to approve “like kind and quality” parts. In practice, that can mean approving non-OEM parts at a lower cost than Tesla’s required OEM components.

Tesla owners report disputes where GEICO allegedly:

• Approved non-OEM parts when OEM parts were required or requested
• Capped payment at a non-OEM benchmark rate
• Required the owner to pay the difference to obtain OEM parts
• Left the owner with total out-of-pocket costs above the deductible

This investigation focuses on whether those reported practices are consistent with policy obligations and applicable consumer protection laws, depending on the policy terms and the facts of each claim.

Legal Issues Under Investigation

Depending on the facts of each case, potential claims may involve allegations such as:

• Breach of Contract. Auto insurance policies are contracts. If a policy promises to restore a vehicle to its pre-loss condition, disputes may arise over whether non-OEM parts meet that standard for Tesla vehicles that require manufacturer-specific components and procedures.
• Insurance Bad Faith. Insurers have a legal duty to handle claims fairly and reasonably. If an insurer unreasonably refuses to pay for repairs necessary to safely and properly restore a covered vehicle, that may raise bad faith concerns under applicable state law.
• Unfair or Deceptive Practices. State consumer protection statutes prohibit unfair or misleading insurance practices. Coverage representations that conflict with how claims are handled may warrant legal review.
• Potential Class-Wide Issues. If Tesla owners are systematically required to pay beyond their deductible to obtain manufacturer-required repairs, broader coordinated litigation may be appropriate.

Who May Have a Potential Claim?

You may have a potential case if:

• You own or lease a Tesla vehicle
• Your Tesla was involved in a collision
• GEICO refused to pay for Tesla-required OEM parts
• You were required to pay the difference between OEM and non-OEM costs
• Your total out-of-pocket payment exceeded your deductible

Each case depends on the specific policy language, repair documentation, and communications involved.

Call For a FREE Case Evaluation: (916) 520-6639

Tesla repair disputes are often document-driven and technical, which means the outcome can turn on policy language, Tesla repair requirements, estimate line items, and what GEICO approved versus what was required to complete OEM repairs.

If you believe you were required to pay more than your deductible to obtain Tesla-required OEM repairs after a collision, we want to hear from you. 

Call (916) 520-6639 or contact us online for a free, confidential consultation. We are reviewing cases nationwide.