Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
5 comments 
After Collision in December 2024, Caused by Hole in Highway, Electric Car Owner Was Almost a Year Without a Vehicle Due to Budget Error and Lack of Part; Judge Imposes Urgent Exchange, Maximum Deadlines of 30 Days and Daily Fine of R$ 500 for Manufacturer, Dealership and Insurer Involved.
A hole in a highway in São Paulo, in December 2024, damaged the rear bumper of an electric car and turned a simple incident into a long ordeal for the owner. The repair budget, approved by the insurer in January 2025, failed to include an essential safety part, preventing the completion of the repair and leaving the consumer without the vehicle for almost a year.
In the absence of an administrative solution, Judge Daniela Claudia Herrera Ximenes, from the 2nd Civil Court of the Regional Forum of Santana in São Paulo, determined that the manufacturer, dealership, and insurer should work together to correct the error, replace the missing part, and return the repaired car within strict deadlines, under penalty of daily fines.
How the Problem with the Electric Car Began
The case involves an electric car that was involved in a collision in December 2024 after falling into a hole on the highway. The impact damaged the rear part of the vehicle, including the safety structure of the bumper.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
The owner took the car for repair, following the normal service flow with the insurer and the authorized dealership.
In the technical evaluation, it became clear that one of the damaged parts was the rear bumper energy absorber beam, a safety component that helps absorb impacts. Still, this part was not included in the first budget prepared by the dealership and subsequently approved by the insurer.
From then on, the electric car remained stationary, unfit for use, awaiting a solution that was not forthcoming.
Budget Error and Almost a Year Without an Electric Car
The initial repair budget was approved by the insurer in January 2025. However, the absence of the rear bumper energy absorber beam in the budget prevented the repair from being completed immediately, as the part is essential for restoring the electric car’s safety.
The practical result was that the owner, even having followed all the procedures with the insurer and dealership, remained almost a year unable to use the electric car due to an administrative error and the delay in making the component available.
The consumer notified the companies, but there was no spontaneous resolution, which led to the filing of the lawsuit.
Lawsuit Against Manufacturer, Dealership and Insurer
Tired of the delay and lack of an amicable solution, the owner filed a lawsuit seeking full compensation for the damage.
In the lawsuit, he pointed out the flaw in the budget, the absence of the safety part, and the long period he was without the electric car.
When analyzing the case, the judge recognized that there was a failure in service delivery at different stages. According to her, the insurer erred by approving an incomplete budget; the dealership failed to prepare the budget without the necessary part; and the manufacturer contributed to the problem by delaying the availability of the safety component.
Thus, the responsibility of all participants in the consumer chain was established.
Joint Liability in the Consumer Defense Code
In the decision, the judge applied Articles 14 and 25, paragraph 1, of the Consumer Defense Code. These provisions establish the objective and joint liability of all suppliers involved in the provision of the service, especially when there is a failure that affects the consumer.
This means that the manufacturer, dealership, and insurer are jointly responsible for the problem, regardless of who, in theory, directly caused the error.
From the judge’s perspective, it is not the consumer who should bear the risk of a poorly done budget or the delay in delivering an essential part for the safe operation of the electric car.
Deadlines, Daily Fine and Execution of Repair
The decision established concrete measures and short deadlines to unlock the situation. The defendants were required to provide, within five days, the removal of the vehicle for new inspection and the mandatory order of the missing part, the rear bumper energy absorber beam.
The automobile manufacturer was given a maximum deadline of 30 days to provide the component, while the dealership and the insurer must deliver the repaired electric car within 15 days after receiving the part.
In case of non-compliance, a daily fine of R$ 500 was established, reinforcing the coercive nature of the decision and the need for a quick solution for the consumer.
The vehicle owner is represented by attorney Ricardo Dolacio Teixeira. The case is under number 4018967-51.2025.8.26.0001 in the 2nd Civil Court of the Regional Forum of Santana in São Paulo and reinforces the message that the consumer cannot be left without their electric car due to internal failures in the service chain.
Have you ever experienced a situation where the repair of an electric car or another vehicle was delayed due to the insurer’s, dealership’s, or part’s unavailability? Share your experience in the comments.
Quando a vítima é juiz a coisa anda rápido, mas quando o CPF é físico o prejuízo é dele
Isso só no Brasil. E todo mundo fazendo o L de L….. achando que está levando vantagem lamentável se não fosse trágico.
OHH CIDADÃO DE MENTE COMPROVADAMENTE RETRAÍDA, SERÁ QUE VOCÊS AINDA CONTINUA APOIANDO AQUELE **** QUE FALOU QUE VOCÊS TODOS SÃO **** DE ESTAR NA RUA TENTANDO APOIAR ELE, ENVOLVE POLÍTICA ATÉ NUMA COISA DESSA VAI FAZER UM TRATAMENTO PSIQUIÁTRICO MEU AMIGO
O maior prejudicado foi o proprietário que deveria receber uma indenização pelo o tempo que ficou sem usufruir do seu carro e pelo constrangimento.