Dillon Anglo, 33, is looking at a roadside memorial sign read as “Safely Drive in Memory” next to the location of a car accident that killed an autopilot-based Tesla driver and catastrophically injured him in Keirago, Florida on August 12, 2025.
Eva Marie Uzcategui | Washington Post | Getty Images
Tesla I filed an appeal of the verdict in a product liability and unlawful death lawsuit.
The Elon Musk automaker is asking for verdicts and seeking a new trial in Florida’s Southern District Court.
Gibson Dunn, who represents Tesla on the appeal, argued that the indemnified damages in the case should drop sharply from $199 million to $69 million at most. As a result, Tesla must pay a $23 million award if the prior judgment holds the company and is partially liable for crash loss.
The company also argued that Florida statutory limits should eliminate punitive damages or reduce them to at most three times the compensation.
The lawsuit focused on a fatal crash that occurred in 2019 in Key Largo, Florida. George McGee was driving a Tesla Model S sedan while using an enhanced Autopilot, a partially automated driving system.
While driving, McGee dropped his phone, scrambled it and picked it up. He said during the trial that he believes that an enhanced autopilot will put the brakes on if the obstacle gets in the way.
The McGee model accelerated through an intersection at just over 60 mph, hitting an empty parking car nearby and its owner, standing on the other side of the vehicle.
The clash killed 22-year-old Nyberbenavidez and seriously injured her boyfriend, Dillon Anglo.
Earlier this month, a ju judge in Miami federal court said Tesla should compensate the families of the deceased and injured survivors, paying the portion of the $222.5 million that it found to be appropriate for a total of $329 million damages.
Tesla’s lawyers claim that the Model S vehicle has no design flaws and can’t even blame the crash for the design flaws, and that the driver has caused them completely.
“As long as the driver remains on the wheel, all safety features can involve a small number of reckless drivers, while increasing the safety of countless others,” the appeal states. “Tesla is responsible for providing drivers with advanced safety features simply because reckless drivers cannot settle with Florida law.”
Tesla did not respond to requests for additional comment.
Brett Schreiber, trial counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that he believes the court will support the previous verdict. This should be viewed as “Tesla’s reckless and unsafe development and deployment of autopilot systems, not indictment of the autonomous vehicle industry.”
“The ju umpire heard all the facts and came to the right conclusion that this is an example of shared responsibility, but it does not discount misrepresentation of the ability that has dropped the role of the violation,” he said.
