[abrokenpipe]

Usually rentals require/include max comprehensive insurance (regulations vary based on the state in US), so if the warranty doesn't cover it then the insurance should.

While I am on the side of right to repair I don't see how this is that relevant to the issue. It seems like more of an issue with insurance/rental laws, transparency in legal agreements, tesla's pricing & service being a bad deal, and possibly negligence on the renter's behalf. I don't think that any company should be allowed to hold a renter liable unless it's proven they damaged the property on purpose. Usually there are a lot of protections in place for renters so it's possible tesla is breaking the law or the renter accepted some liability attempting to save money.

Rentals and shared ownership situations are always messy anyways... A lot of this just reminds me of: "My condo HOA decided to hire the most expensive roof repair company in town!! Why can't we just pour some cheap tar across the roof and call it good for a few more years?!?!"

[anfilt]

A bit off topic, but tar should only be used as temp repair to prevent further damage from water and moisture. For example its winter and you have asphalt shingle roof. Asphalt shingles are brittle when cold so attempting a proper repair could damage more shingles on what was a rather localized problem. Also ice and snow makes working on a roof more hazardous.

An other possible reason would be you don't have enough money on hand at the moment the issue was discovered giving you a few months to set asside enough money. Similar, thing the contractors schedule is packed so a quick temp repair can hold you off while you wait the week or two for his crew to begin work. An other similar issue is waiting on materials if your roof uses a material that is not locally stocked.

Tar also has a nasty problem of becoming brittle from UV light something roofs get plenty of. So instead of flexing under thermal expansion and contraction it just cracks. So its not ideal for anything but a temporary fix.

Now for choosing the most expensive contractor that is on your condo. Although they could have certainly been valid reasons.

[abrokenpipe]

Thats interesting, I never knew that about tar but it makes sense.

[kube-system]

The article doesn’t say his insurance wouldn’t cover it. It says his comprehensive coverage on his insurance wouldn’t cover it. Which is highly likely because this type of incident is usually a collision claim.

If he has comprehensive at all then he almost certainly has collision coverage. It’s just that, then it’s $16k accident that’s he’s at fault for.

[abrokenpipe]

I'm not sure if it said he had comprehensive, sounds like he didn't, but the wording is a bit strange.

> "the owner's insurance policy didn't cover comprehensive claims from road debris"

My guess was that this would have been a comprehensive claim, but he didn't have that insurance plan. Could just be a deceptive play on words to evade the real issue...

[kube-system]

I am not aware of any US insurer or state where striking an object on a road would be a comprehensive claim. After watching the video I think he’s probably just confusing the two. Which might be likely since he clearly doesn’t have his whole insurance situation figured out.