A Tesla Insurance policyholder’s claims handling complaint has reached mediation with the California Department of Insurance (CDI).
Damages to Piyush Rattan’s 2020 Tesla X from a December 2025 right rear-end collision led the insurance company to deem it a total loss, which Rattan has disputed. He argues that his vehicle should be repaired based on its actual cash value (ACV) compared to the repair estimate.
An estimate provided by a Tesla-Certified Repair Center in California states the repairs would cost about $4,800, and confirmed to Rattan that his vehicle can be repaired. Tesla Insurance used CCC ONE to determine that the ACV is nearly $28,700.
Rattan’s Tesla remains stored at the repair facility.
During Q&A in a July 2025 panel discussion at a meeting of the Collision Industry Conference (CIC), Jeff Butler, with Haury’s Collision and Washington Independent Collision Repair Association (WICRA) past president, asked how policyholders can effectively push back when they disagree with their carrier’s decision to total their vehicles, and how shops can advocate on behalf of their customers.
Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) Executive Director Aaron Schulenburg also asked a question on behalf of Tom Bub, with Gerald’s Auto Body in Tennessee:
“Lately, it seems insurers are totaling vehicles before they reach the normal 75% threshold we generally work under. In the last six months, we have had three cases in which the insurance company has deemed three different vehicles a total loss before they reach that 75%, even after a thorough teardown. I understand that the insurance companies can determine a total loss when they see fit, but this does raise a few
concerns for us on behalf of our customers and our shop. How do we protect our customers when these instances occur, and they do
not want their vehicle to total? In our experience with them, the customer’s opinion has not been taken into account.
“Also, how do we protect the workflow of the shop when these vehicles are pulled out or have to be rebuilt for the customer to retain them? This is not an issue we have really ever seen before, and we have a genuine concern that this will continue to trend upward with our operations if we can’t find some way to alleviate it. Even getting some ideas on protecting our customers and ourselves in these situations would be helpful.”
In response, Jill Tuggle, CIC Governmental Committee co-chair and moderator of the panel, recommended that shops reach out to either their local association or local lawmakers, as well as state departments of insurance.
“Sometimes just bringing up these issues, you can make effective change,” she said.
David Willett, SPARK Underwriters’ chief underwriting officer, said if it isn’t obvious that the vehicle damages will be above 75%, then there should be pushback.
“I’ve seen instances where it is obvious, and there’s people that are continuing to run the clock,” he said. “What that ends up doing is increase the cost of the claim settlement. And that does get factored into increased costs that, in my opinion, are unnecessary going forward when it’s obvious that you have a statute that is going to be applied.”
Rattan argues that his vehicle’s Full Self-Driving capability has been undervalued, and its “average condition” was incorrectly assumed. He also argues that inappropriate comparable vehicles were chosen, and a Tesla Insurance adjuster manually manipulated the ACV.
In January, Rattan’s attorney requested that all paid options, software entitlements, transferable benefits, and permanently installed OEM and aftermarket upgrades be fully and accurately reflected in the ACV settlement.
“Under California Insurance Code and standard total-loss valuation principles, the settlement must restore the insured to the same financial position as prior to the loss, including all paid factory options, software licenses, transferable benefits, and permanently installed equipment,” the email to Tesla Insurance states. “Accordingly, we formally request written confirmation that the ACV will be revised to include and itemize the above components and that the total-loss settlement will be adjusted to reflect this additional $16,284.63 in documented and market-supported value, in addition to the base vehicle valuation.”
A claims adjuster responded that the amount can only be adjusted if something is missed regarding options. Rattan’s attorney stated that she and Rattan “respectfully but clearly disagree with several of the positions stated” and requested that the vehicle valuation and rental determinations be reconsidered.
Rattan’s attorney also wrote to Tesla Insurance that, “California law does not allow insurers to disregard the remaining value of paid options or to average them into a base model unless the comparables are truly identical in configuration. The valuation must reflect what a willing buyer would pay for this exact vehicle configuration in the open market.”
A claims adjuster responded that Rattan could invoke the appraisal clause on his policy, informing him that he would need to hire his own appraiser and share their contact information so an independent appraiser could follow up with them.
“Once an agreement is made, then that amount is binding,” he wrote. “Also, in regards to the rental, all insurance companies only allow a certain amount of time for the rental when there is a total loss, even if the owner disagrees with the value or has not received payment. How much is allowed is up to that specific carrier, but it is not covered or extended until the value is agreed upon.”
On Feb. 19, Rattan wrote to CDI that his disagreement with Tesla Insurance’s determination isn’t over a dollar amount.
“It is a compliance issue concerning the integrity of the valuation methodology itself,” he wrote. “Specifically, the concerns include: whether substantially similar comparables were properly selected, whether geographic market standards were followed, whether mileage and condition adjustments were objectively supported, whether material options such as Full Self-Driving and recent battery replacement were properly reflected, whether manual overrides or input modifications were made within the CCC system, and whether the valuation process complies with Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations.”
An associate claims manager with Tesla Insurance reopened Rattan’s claim. On Feb. 19, he informed him that he had reviewed it and determined that all damages had been addressed, once again closing the file.
Seeking further clarification, Rattan sent several questions to Tesla Insurance’s Claims Department. A Tesla Insurance auto damage adjuster told Rattan his vehicle was determined to be a total loss because the cumulative repair cost exceeded the actual cash value.
“This determination is based on industry-standard third-party data (CCC ONE), not internal Tesla pricing,” a March 3 email states. “The valuation of your vehicle is determined by the insurer, not the shop.
“Tesla Insurance does not control the decision to accept and/or repair a vehicle — especially one near or above the total loss threshold — this is solely at the discretion of the repair facility. No restrictions were placed by Tesla Insurance. The vehicle was deemed a total loss based on our review of the supporting documentation provided by your initial shop of choice based [on] our valuation of your vehicle.”
After months of ACV discussions with Tesla Insurance, Rattan took his concerns to CDI and the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
Rattan says that when he tried to have his vehicle assessed for a secondary estimate at a Tesla Collision Center, he was turned away. In a March 9 email, BAR told Rattan to take his allegations to court or the CDI since it was unable to confirm them, and the vehicle wasn’t repaired there.
Rattan wrote to the CDI that his complaint seeks enforcement of California insurance laws related to vehicle repairs and claims handling.
“Under California Insurance Code §758.5 and California Code of Regulations §2695.8(f), consumers have the right to choose their repair facility and obtain repair estimates without being directed or restricted by the insurer,” he wrote to CDI on March 10. “Additionally, California Business and Professions Code §9884.9 governs written estimates and authorization requirements for automotive repairs.
“The purpose of filing a complaint with the Department of Insurance is to seek fair review, mediation, and enforcement of applicable laws. Instead of receiving assistance, I experienced hostile communication and a lack of response regarding the status of my complaint.”
According to emails from Rattan to CDI and shared with Repairer Driven News, Rattan said he was spoken to in a hostile manner via phone.
In a March 20 letter to Rattan, CDI states that his unresolved complaint may be eligible for the CDI mediation program “to resolve claims fairly, without lengthy and costly litigation.”
“We have notified your insurance company of this referral,” the letter states. “It has 28 days to attempt to resolve this matter before mediation is available as provided by California Insurance Code (CIC) Section 10089.72.”
CDI didn’t return a request for comment on the complaint from RDN.
According to CDI’s website, issues eligible for automobile claim mediation include:
Extent or amounts of damage
Methods of repair
Cause of damage
Prior damage versus recent damage
Total loss versus repairing
Value of total loss
CDI states on the site that, “In private sessions held with each party, the mediator separately tries to promote a candid discussion of the issues and priorities of each party.
“Gaining knowledge of facts from these meetings, a mediator can use the information learned from each to:
“Reduce the hostility between the parties and help them engage in a meaningful dialogue on the issues at hand;
“Open discussions into areas not previously considered;
“Communicate positions or proposals in more understandable terms;
“Probe and uncover additional facts and the real interests of parties;
“Help each party to better understand the other party’s views and evaluations of a particular issue, without violating confidences;
“Narrow the issues and each party’s positions, and deflate extreme demands or positions;
“Evaluate the receptiveness for a proposal or suggestion;
“Explore alternatives and search for solutions;
“Identify those issues of importance to each party and those that may be more easily dispensed with;
“Structure a settlement to resolve current problems as well as to meet future needs of the parties.”
Images
Featured image credit: jetcityimage/iStock
Secondary photos show the damage to Piyush Rattan’s 2020 Tesla X. (Provided by Piyush Rattan)
Share This:
Related
