A San Diego Superior Court judge has found Tesla liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation in a Rancho Santa Fe homeowner’s dispute over a Solar Roof that, according to the homeowner, was never completed to his satisfaction and did not pass county inspection. Judge Cynthia Freeland’s September 11 ruling leaves compensatory and punitive damages for a later trial. Tesla had separately admitted or stipulated to liability on other claims, including breach of contract, breach of warranty and negligence, Electrek reported.
The case concerns Ambrose Conroy’s 2020 contract for a 13.1-kilowatt system priced at $82,210. A later agreement expanded the project to an 18.2-kilowatt roof and six Powerwalls for about $110,000. Conroy says the work left roof decking exposed during construction and included damaged or shattered tiles; the system did not pass county inspection and never generated electricity for the home, according to Electrek’s account of the case. Those are case-specific claims and outcomes, not findings about Solar Roof installations generally.
What the inspection record does—and doesn’t—show
San Diego County’s solar-PV specifications require roof penetrations to be secure and weather-tight and require roof-mounted photovoltaic systems to meet firefighter-access requirements. A separate county handout describes final inspection as occurring after work is complete and required permit conditions have been accepted. These are general standards and process guidance; the available account does not identify the specific reason Conroy’s installation failed inspection or establish that any particular code violation caused the failure. (County solar-PV specifications; county inspection handout.)
The contracted 18.2-kilowatt system also offers scale context, but not a measure of workmanship or difficulty: Berkeley Lab reported a 7.2-kilowatt median for new residential solar installations nationally in 2022. That figure is from a later year and is not a direct comparison for a California project begun in 2020. It cannot, on its own, establish that Conroy’s job was unusually complex or that its size contributed to the problems he alleges. (Berkeley Lab.)
Damages and appeal remain ahead
Freeland later denied Tesla’s request to reconsider discovery sanctions, writing that records produced late could support Conroy’s claim that the company knowingly treated his home as a test project despite lacking the experience to do the work properly, Electrek reported. Tesla has argued the discovery dispute was unrelated to the fraud claims and that it produced relevant material. The company has asked to pause the case while it seeks review from the California Court of Appeal. The damages trial remains unresolved.
The dispute also comes as Tesla’s roof-tile product has receded from the market. Canary Media, citing Wood Mackenzie, reported that Tesla had installed about 3,000 Solar Roofs nationwide before discontinuing the product in 2026; the reported installed base represented less than 0.03% of the U.S. roofing market by the end of 2022. Those figures describe the product’s limited reach, not the frequency of defects or the outcome of Conroy’s case. (Canary Media.)
