— An insurance company that provides coverage for Contra Costa County in California has filed a lawsuit against Tesla for damage to a fire truck owned by the county.
Filed by Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management, the plaintiff argues Tesla is responsible for the damage caused to a county fire truck in February 2023.
The damage occurred when a 2014 Tesla Model S slammed into the 2016 Pierce fire truck at about 4 a.m., a crash that killed Tesla driver Giovanni Mendoza Martinez and injured his passenger, his brother.
The family of Giovanni, 31, also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla by claiming he believed the Model S was a self-driving car. That lawsuit remains in court.
Giovanni Mendoza was driving on Interstate 680 in California in the Tesla Model S which he believed “would drive itself and he no longer needed to drive it."
Emergency responders were on the scene due to a previous crash and used a large Contra Costa County ladder fire truck parked diagonally across two lanes of traffic to block traffic. There were also several other parked emergency vehicles with their emergency flashing lights activated when the Tesla slammed into the side of the fire truck at about 70 mph.
Giovanni had engaged Tesla's Autopilot about 12 minutes before the Model S slammed into the Contra Costa County fire truck. His family places all the blame for his death on Tesla even though they admit:
"At the time of the collision, Giovanni was not controlling the Subject Vehicle, but he was instead passively sitting in the driver's seat with the 'Autopilot' feature engaged."
Public Risk Innovation's lawsuit against Tesla is similar, arguing Mendoza "was passively sitting in the driver’s seat with the 'Autopilot' feature engaged."
"Investigation indicates that the Subject Tesla was in 'Autopilot' for approximately 12 minutes prior to the Collision, with no accelerator pedal or brake pedal inputs from the Driver during that time and was travelling [sic] at a speed of 71 mph during that 12-minute period. Data also showed that the Driver generally maintained contact with the steering wheel until the time of the Collision."
The lawsuit doesn't explain what is meant by "generally" maintained contact with the steering wheel, which is a statement lifted from the Mendoza family lawsuit.
And similar to the family's lawsuit against Tesla, the insurance provider doesn't say how the Tesla driver or his passenger failed to see the vehicles and emergency lights. But the lawsuit does argue the crash would not have occurred if Tesla wouldn't have lied about the ability of Autopilot.
According to the insurance provider, Tesla allegedly knew its Autopilot vision system couldn't tell the different between emergency vehicles with flashing lights from other vehicles on the road. The lawsuit says the system is based on single frames which interfere with recognizing flashing lights.
Based on previous Tesla Autopilot lawsuits, Tesla argues a driver is repeatedly warned to keep their hands on the steering wheel and stay alert. The automaker also complains drivers don't seem to understand the wording in the owner's manuals which says the vehicles are not autonomous and drivers are responsible for their actions.
The Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management Tesla Autopilot lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management, v. Tesla, Inc., et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Grotefeld Hoffmann LLP.