Ford argues that arbitration is a better way to resolve disputes. Claims resolution “should be fair, prompt, efficient and proportionate to the dispute,” Ian Thibodeau, a Ford spokesman, said in an email. “Arbitration often achieves those goals faster and more effectively than the legal system.”
However, in another recent case, a federal judge in Illinois denied a motion by Subaru to force arbitration for an owner who had signed an arbitration agreement with a dealer. The owner claimed her privacy was being invaded by Subaru technology designed to see if drivers are attentive. The court ruled that an agreement between the dealer and the buyer did not apply to disputes with the manufacturer.
Because of its direct sales model, Tesla stands out from much of the industry, lawyers said.
“Tesla appears to be unique among car companies in their use of arbitration clauses to avoid accountability in courts,” said Donald Slavik, representing Derrick Monet, whose wife, Jenna Monet, was killed when their Tesla hit a parked fire truck on the road. . I-70 in Indiana.
A lawsuit by Mr Monet, who was seriously injured, attributed the crash to Tesla’s Autopilot system, which can steer, brake and accelerate a car on its own. Tesla, which is fighting the lawsuit, has not yet attempted to force the case to arbitration. The company has maintained that Autopilot improves the safety of its cars.
Kristin Hull, CEO of investment firm Nia Impact Capital, has urged Tesla to do away with forced arbitration for employees, arguing that it hides issues that investors should know about. In August, nearly 40 percent of shareholders supported a resolution proposed by Nia that would have directed Tesla to investigate whether forced arbitration affects employees’ ability to seek redress for discrimination or other grievances.
“As investors, we don’t have any insight into corporate culture and what’s happening,” said Dr. Hull. “Managers are not held accountable.”
