Suits & Settlements: The Car Pro Legal Roundup

Editor's note: Suits & Settlements is a weekly column in which Car Pro Show host Jerry Reynolds takes a look at the latest automotive-related legal headlines.

First-Time EV Driver Sues Tesla Over Model Y Crash. Tesla is facing a federal lawsuit seeking more than $10 million in damages from a Virginia woman who crashed a Model Y into an Arlington hair salon during a September 2024 test drive. According to the lawsuit, Alemzewd Lawgalet told Tesla employees she had never driven an electric vehicle and requested that an employee accompany her but was allegedly told the Model Y operated like a gasoline-powered vehicle and was sent out alone. Lawgalet claims employees failed to explain regenerative braking or the vehicle's different acceleration settings before the drive. While traveling on Interstate 395, she alleges she became frightened when the Model Y slowed sharply after she lifted her foot from the accelerator, prompting her to exit the highway and return to Tesla. After stopping at a traffic light near the Pentagon, the lawsuit says the vehicle accelerated much more forcefully than she expected when the light changed, causing her to lose control and crash into a hair salon. Lawgalet alleges she suffered serious and permanent injuries and is seeking at least $10 million in compensatory damages plus $350,000 in punitive damages. Tesla denies responsibility and has argued that Lawgalet failed to exercise reasonable care and failed to mitigate her alleged damages. The lawsuit, now in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, has not been decided, and Lawgalet's allegations have not been proven.

Subaru Asks Judge to Toss Pre-Collision Braking Claims. Subaru is asking a New Jersey federal judge to dismiss a proposed nationwide class action alleging defects in pre-collision braking systems used in several of its vehicles, arguing the plaintiffs have failed to identify an actual malfunction, according to Law360. The lawsuit alleges the systems can unexpectedly activate the brakes when no collision threat exists, potentially creating a safety risk for drivers and other motorists. In its motion to dismiss, Subaru argues the complaint does not plausibly establish that the vehicles contain a common defect and points to the named plaintiffs' continued use of their vehicles as undermining claims that the systems make them unsafe. Subaru also contends the plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to support a nationwide class action. The owners maintain the alleged problem can cause vehicles to brake unexpectedly and contend Subaru should be held responsible for the claimed defect. At this stage, however, those remain allegations, and the court has not determined that Subaru vehicles contain a defective braking system or that the automaker is liable. The judge must now decide whether the plaintiffs have alleged enough facts for the litigation to continue. The dispute is another example of the legal challenges surrounding increasingly sophisticated driver-assistance technology, where a feature designed to prevent collisions can itself become the subject of litigation when owners allege it activates when it shouldn't.

Polestar Dealer Seeks $25 Million Over U.S. Exit. A New Jersey Polestar dealer is seeking at least $25 million in damages, alleging the electric-vehicle maker effectively engineered its exit from the U.S. market and used a federal connected-vehicle ban as justification for abandoning its franchise obligations, according to The Wall Street Journal. Prestige Imports of East Hanover, which does business as Prestige Polestar and is owned by dealer Matthew Haiken, filed the lawsuit in New Jersey state court. Polestar announced in June that it would stop selling new vehicles in the United States beginning with the 2027 model year after the U.S. Commerce Department denied the automaker a waiver from new federal rules restricting connected-vehicle technology linked to China and Russia. The dealership alleges Polestar failed to make changes sought by regulators and declined to appeal the government's decision, while Volvo Cars, which shares Chinese ownership ties with Polestar, obtained a waiver allowing it to continue selling vehicles here. Polestar has characterized the federal action as a force majeure event beyond its control and declined to comment on the litigation, saying its focus remains on supporting customers. Haiken's dealership alleges Polestar's departure effectively and unlawfully terminates its New Jersey franchise agreement after the dealer invested millions of dollars in the brand, including construction of a stand-alone showroom. The allegations have not been proven, and no court has determined that Polestar intentionally caused or encouraged the federal government's decision.

Mercedes-AMG Drivers Sue Over Alleged Seat-Badge Burns. Two Mercedes-AMG drivers have filed a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging metal AMG emblems embedded in the vehicles' front seats can become hot enough in sunlight to burn occupants, according to The Associated Press. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges the raised metallic badge is positioned where it can contact a driver's upper back, neck or shoulder and can reach dangerous temperatures after a vehicle sits in the sun. Plaintiff Gabriel Lahijani alleges he suffered first- and second-degree burns after getting into his leased 2026 Mercedes-AMG E-Class in Los Angeles on May 31 while wearing a tank top. According to the complaint, a dermatologist later documented burns on his back in the shape of the AMG lettering. Co-plaintiff Karendeep "Karina" Bath alleges she experienced a similar incident about six weeks later after entering her Mercedes-AMG in Los Angeles while wearing a sleeveless top, leaving what the complaint describes as a logo-shaped thermal contact burn. The plaintiffs allege the seat design is defective and are seeking compensation for medical expenses and other damages they can prove, along with relief that would require Mercedes to pay for removal of the allegedly hazardous emblems from affected vehicles. Mercedes-Benz had not publicly responded to the lawsuit when it was reported. The allegations remain unproven, and the court has made no determination that the AMG seat design is defective.