A San Diego judge has found Tesla liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation over a Solar Roof installation that, after more than six years, never generated a single watt of electricity for the homeowner who paid for it.
What actually happened
The case, Conroy v. Tesla, was filed in 2022 in San Diego Superior Court’s North County division by Ambrose Conroy, a homeowner in Rancho Santa Fe. According to court documents reviewed by Electrek, Conroy signed a contract in March 2020 for $82,210 covering a 13.1 kW Tesla Solar Roof system. After two contract amendments, the scope grew to an 18.2 kW roof with six Powerwalls, at a cost of roughly $110,000.
The roof never passed a San Diego County inspection, and it never produced power.
During the lawsuit, Tesla repeatedly failed to turn over evidence the court had ordered it to produce, including internal messages, safety reports, and communications with county inspectors. The court sanctioned Tesla twice over these failures, $15,467.50 in February and $13,500 in June, according to Electrek. After Tesla missed yet another deadline, Judge Cynthia Freeland ruled on September 11, 2026 that Tesla was liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, limiting the trial to compensatory and punitive damages on those claims. Tesla asked the court to reconsider. On October 27, the judge denied that request, writing that evidence supported Conroy’s theory that Tesla “knowingly used Plaintiff’s home as an experiment while knowing they lacked the experience to perform as promised.”
Before the fraud ruling, Tesla had already stipulated to liability on three other claims in the case: breach of warranty, breach of contract, and negligence.
One important distinction
This fraud finding came as a
discovery sanction, the court’s response to Tesla’s repeated failure to produce evidence, rather than a jury’s verdict after a full trial on the merits. That doesn’t make it less consequential. It means the court has already determined Tesla is liable, and what remains is to determine the amount of compensatory and punitive damages. Conroy’s side has estimated remediation costs at well over $2.5 million; reporting indicates Tesla, at one point, offered $5,000 to settle. No final damages award has been issued, and Tesla is challenging the ruling, including seeking a stay while it petitions the California Court of Appeal.
Why this matters beyond one homeowner
Conroy’s complaint reportedly references Tesla’s own prior history with Solar Roof installations gone wrong, and a 2025 California Contractors State License Board action that sought to revoke Tesla’s contractor licenses over abandoned Solar Roof jobs. If you have a Tesla Solar Roof, or you’re considering one, this case is worth watching closely, not because every Solar Roof installation has these problems, but because a California court has now found, at least at this stage of one case, that Tesla’s own internal conduct around a troubled installation rose to the level of fraud.
If you have a Tesla Solar Roof with problems
- Document everything now. Inspection failures, missed deadlines, production shortfalls, and every communication with Tesla. Our
documentation checklist covers what to gather.
- Check your system’s actual production against what you were promised. Our guide to
proving a solar production shortfall explains how.
- Check whether your installation ever got utility authorization to operate. A system that never passed inspection, like Conroy’s, may also have never received permission to operate. See our
Permission to Operate guide.
- Check the contractor’s license status on the
CSLB license lookup.
- If you financed through Tesla or a third-party lender, the
FTC Holder Rule may let you raise installation problems against the lender.
- File a complaint with the appropriate agency. Our
complaint agencies guide covers CSLB and other California routes.
Questions about the Tesla Solar Roof fraud ruling
Has Tesla been ordered to pay Conroy damages yet?
No. The September 11, 2026 ruling established that Tesla is liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. A trial on the amount of compensatory and punitive damages hasn’t concluded, and Tesla is challenging the ruling.
Does this ruling mean every Tesla Solar Roof is defective?
No. This is a finding specific to one case and one installation, issued as a sanction for Tesla’s conduct during the litigation itself. It doesn’t establish that every Solar Roof installation has the same problems, though it’s relevant if you’ve experienced similar issues.
What was Tesla’s settlement offer in this case?
Reporting indicates Tesla, at one point, offered $5,000 to settle, against Conroy’s estimated remediation cost of well over $2.5 million.
Dealing with a Tesla Solar Roof or panel installation that never worked the way you were promised?
Send us your contract and your documentation and we’ll tell you where you stand, usually in one 15-minute call.
Call (213) 579-5156 or visit californiasolarexit.com.
By
Daniel Merritt, Senior Solar Contract Analyst
Daniel Merritt is a Senior Solar Contract Analyst at California Solar Exit. This article is general information, not legal advice, and results depend on the facts of each contract.
