Why would they care? They can cover a vehicle or not. They don’t owe anyone anything.
In reality, insurance is all too happy to cover almost any car that’s made in sufficient volume. If repairs are expensive, they can increase the premiums. All they care about is getting a handle on what they need to charge. Maybe difficult for something like a Lamborghini, but not a Cybertruck.
Why did they send out notices to customers saying that they no longer cover Cybertrucks? Whoopsie!
They did do that, though. And now they’ve appeared to change their minds. Or was it just a mistake? Given that customer reports have been coming out for months about Geico dropping coverage, and now we have confirmation that those reports were true, hardly seems like a simple mistake.
Maybe some Geico VP is a Musk fanboy and overruled some subordinate who made the call. Or maybe they’re worried about Musk using the full power of his Twitter pulpit to trash Geico, just like he’s trashed all the other companies he’s beefed with.
But the timing is suspect, they didn’t change their tune until the media grabbed hold of this for 15 minutes. If it was a glitch they would have fixed it months ago when it first started happening. (And they still haven’t updated their website, suggesting this was a very quick pivot).
Not gonna get into that. Keep it in the other thread.
Regardless, it seems clear that their actual, current policy is that they’ll cover the vehicle.
I’ll acknowledge that if you acknowledge that customers did indeed get these notices, have been for months, and it wasn’t just “hysterical media spin”.
Yes, the notices are obviously real. The hysterical media spin is that they took a few isolated reports and didn’t bother to do a fact-check before declaring there was some widespread issue. Your own (uncited) post here fails to mention that it was only GEICO, for instance.
Unsurprisingly, there is a parallel discussion over on Elon Musk pit thread about the [Geico insuring CTs: will they or won’t they?] controversy. Starting about here:
It would be nice if we could stick to well-cited information in this thread and leave everything else to one of the 10,000 other threads covering related subjects.
This is the Dope, you realize? 
The top 3 selling EVs in the US are now the Tesla Model Y, the Tesla Model 3, and the Tesla Cybertruck:
The Cybertruck displaced the Ford Mustang Mach-E with 16,692 vs. 13,392 sales in Q3 2024. The F-150 Lightning is at 7,162, and the Rivian R1T is at 3,817.
Still, it is actually good to see so many models with decent sales. There are lots of models now that sell over 5k units/quarter. It isn’t healthy for Tesla to dominate too much.
This is kinda funny:
They don’t even make the Cybertruck look bad. They’re just highlighting the happy and friendly vibe vs. dark and edgy. But I don’t think too many people are cross-shopping Cybertrucks vs. Fiat 500es, and the potential market for Cybertrucks likes the dark and edgy vibe, so really this is just a Cybertruck ad paid for by Fiat.
Though I almost wonder if Tesla did throw a few bucks their way to pay for their share…
Not even a little bit. The Cybertruck has been dominating recent conversations about electric vehicles and often in pretty negative ways. This commercial is for people who have been soured on the concept of electric vehicles because Elon Musk is a lunatic and the Cybertruck itself is, to put it gently, visually polarizing.
There is absolutely no one that was considering getting a Cybertruck that will get a Fiat based on this ad. But it wouldn’t surprise me if someone sees “ice in its veins”, and thinks, if only a little bit, that it looks kinda badass. It actually looks great in all of the visuals. Nice framing, color choice, etc. They could have made it look awkward or even just done a pure satire with some cobbled-together looking thing, but they didn’t.
Plus, if you rematch the spot, it (the spot) could’ve been dove extremely cheaply…
Throw Brain at it instead of money.
First, I heard it elsewhere and have claimed it as my own - I will be referring to all Cybertrucks as Deploreans.
Second, adult film star Dante Colle took a video of himself shooting his Cybertruck in the back gate. Left a nice little bullet hole. To top off the stupid, he then throws his handgun on the ground. Because the obvious thing to do after fucking up your six-figure peenmachine in a way insurance is definitely not going to cover is to ignore every gun safety rule.
For the record, that was posted in the Elon Musk pit thread.
And yes, I’ll admit that as a former claims adjuster, I’d have had a large grin at the opportunity to deny that particular claim.
In fact, and pulling the thread back from Pit territory, I’ve really wondered about a LOT of the videos showing people trying (with a mix of success and failures) to put the CT to the test. Almost all of them would touch or cross over the realm of “deliberate actions” that void most insurance policies, and the filming of them would almost certainly provide all the proof the carrier would need to deny the claims. I’m wondering if that is also a part of the reported denial of future coverage. If even 1/4 of the claims (and I’m leaving out all the probable vehicle issue based towing claims and possible rental coverage that certainly add up as well!) are policy-holder caused, I’d probably be leery of insuring the risk as well.
I mean, realistically, I think modern handguns aren’t going to go off if you drop/throw them to the ground.
That aside, I don’t care if he’s doing it for engagement, it’s still stupid, and a delight to see.
And realistically, a modern handgun verified multiple times to be empty isn’t going to shoot anyone either.
And yet, you still don’t point it at people and pull the trigger. Because (with very rare exceptions), anyone handling a firearm should be following gun safety rules. Every. Time.
Yeah, you could fully disassemble and reassemble a gun in in a sealed clean room, creating a 100% certainty that there’s no bullet anywhere nearby, and I’d still yell at you for pointing it at me or throwing it on the ground. Gun safety isn’t negotiable.
You’re the pro here, not me.
But ISTM certain vehicles are just abuse magnets. e.g. a Jeep with the full factory off-road kit, snorkel, etc., plus a bunch of aftermarket lights, winch, 4 foot tall jack, etc.
If that’s your neighbor’s vehicle and you know they like to actually play in the dirt, not just look cool (read “ridiculous”) at the grocery store, you also just know they are going to crunch the thing out in the dirt somehow pretty soon. And probably call their insurance co over it.
Lest I sound too snobby about Jeep folks …
I don’t (now) have an off-roader. But did years ago. Instead now I have a stupid-fast / quick car. Good bet that if I do wreck it, some extra-legal driving will have been involved. Anyone looking at the make and model can assume that without needing to be in the insurance biz. 
TL;DR: Some cars have high premiums for a reason. Mostly the idjits who drive them (badly). 
Former pro, been over a decade. But yeah, certain types of vehicles DO attract bonus premiums, to the point of redlining. For example (now back to when I was a sales agent) if you were, as a NOT random example, a 19-21 year old seeking full coverage on a high powered sports motorcycle (Ninja and the like), the liability was more expensive than a cruiser, but still affordable. Put COMP and COLL on it? Now you’re talking about 7-10k a year!
Why? Because we knew the odds were you’d lay it down at least once in that or the next year. And that’s an instant total loss at the speeds of most of those bikes.
The Jeeps you mentioned? One of the key questions was about ACPE (additional custom parts and equipment). The policy covered $1k of that by default, but if you had thousands of dollars of bonus stuff, premiums went up noticeably, and it lead to questions about altered suspensions (4" IIRC) we wouldn’t insure it. The vehicle was inherently unsafe at that point.
The Cybertruck at it’s price point is already a big risk, the repair costs are sky-high, and everything about it is prone to simple damage. Heck, I wonder about claims based on the “dry it immediately if it rains or bird poop, or etc”. Just like Hertz got badly dinged by the 30-40% repair premium on their Tesla sedans, I can’t imagine the costs to correctly evaluate the repair costs of a CT before opening a carrier up to spiraling costs of repairs after authorizing them.
The deliberate damage thing is probably just the icing on the cake. And like a lot of stupid crimes, the fact that the user probably documented it online is just the cherry on top.