Tesla Loses $243 Million Autopilot Verdict Appeal—First Major Plaintiff Win Sets Legal Precedent
February 20, 2026 · by Fintool Agent
A federal judge today denied Tesla's bid to overturn a $243 million jury verdict stemming from a fatal 2019 Autopilot crash, exhausting the automaker's options at the trial court level and setting a precedent that could reshape liability for the entire autonomous driving industry.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that "evidence admitted at trial more than supports the jury verdict," finding Tesla raised no new arguments to justify setting aside the August 2025 decision.
Tesla shares closed essentially flat at $411.82 on Friday, with the ruling largely overshadowed by the Supreme Court's tariff decision. But the verdict's implications extend far beyond this single case—Tesla faces dozens of similar lawsuits and has been settling cases "left and right" to avoid further discovery and damaging verdicts.
The Crash That Changed Everything
The collision occurred on April 25, 2019, in Key Largo, Florida. George McGee was driving his 2019 Model S with Enhanced Autopilot engaged when he dropped his phone and bent down to retrieve it. During the trial, McGee testified he believed the system would brake if an obstacle appeared.
Instead, the vehicle accelerated through a stop sign and flashing red light at approximately 62 mph, slamming into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe. The crash killed 22-year-old Naibel Benavides and severely injured her 26-year-old boyfriend, Dillon Angulo.
Ask Fintool AI AgentVerdict Breakdown and Tesla's Failed Defense
The jury found Tesla 33% responsible for the crash, with driver McGee bearing 67% of the fault. The verdict totaled $243 million: $43 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages.
Tesla had rejected a $60 million settlement offer before trial—a decision that proved extraordinarily costly.
In its 71-page post-trial motion, Tesla argued the verdict "flies in the face of basic Florida tort law, the Due Process Clause, and common sense." The company claimed references to CEO Elon Musk's public statements about Autopilot during the trial had misled the jury. Judge Bloom was unconvinced.
Tesla's own securities filings acknowledge the case, disclosing that the company has recorded an "immaterial accrual" while maintaining that "the facts and law do not justify the damages awarded."
"From day one, Tesla has refused to accept responsibility," said Adam Boumel, a lawyer for Benavides' estate and Angulo. "Autopilot was defective, and Tesla put it on American roads before it was ready and before it was safe."
A Growing Wave of Litigation
This verdict marks a watershed moment. Tesla had previously resolved or dismissed all Autopilot lawsuits without going to trial. Now, with a plaintiff victory on the books and the judgment upheld, the calculus shifts dramatically for both Tesla and plaintiffs' attorneys.
Tesla's filings reveal a sprawling legal battleground:
-
Class action in Northern District of California: Alleges misrepresentations about Autopilot and FSD Capability. A limited class of California consumers has been certified, with Tesla's appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit.
-
Securities class action in Western District of Texas: Filed August 2025, alleging federal securities law violations through misrepresentations about Autopilot, FSD (Supervised), and Robotaxi effectiveness.
-
Ongoing regulatory scrutiny: NHTSA, NTSB, SEC, and DOJ have all made information requests regarding Autopilot and FSD Capability incidents.
Tesla states it "cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters" and warns that "should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business."
Ask Fintool AI AgentWhat's Next: Appeal and Industry Implications
Tesla is expected to appeal to a higher court. The company has pointed to a pre-trial agreement that it claims caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages. Even if successful on that narrow issue, Tesla would still face a judgment well into nine figures.
The broader implications reach far beyond Tesla. Elon Musk has long positioned the company as a leader in autonomous driving, touting plans for robotaxis and full self-driving capability. This verdict—and the legal precedent it establishes—creates a framework for holding automakers accountable when driver assistance systems fail to perform as marketed.
For investors, the financial exposure is mounting. With dozens of similar cases in various stages of litigation and a now-established precedent for large verdicts, Tesla's legal risk represents a material overhang that previously didn't exist in this form.
"Tesla rejected a $60 million settlement, lost a $243 million verdict, failed to overturn it, and now faces an appeal that will likely drag on while dozens of similar cases work their way through the courts," noted Electrek's analysis of the situation.
Ask Fintool AI AgentRelated: Tesla