SINGAPORE – The owner of a Porsche Taycan 4S that was rear-ended just a day after the luxury electric vehicle (EV) had a faulty battery replaced has sued the car dealer for more than $300,000.
Mr Jason Ling, 44, alleged that TTS Eurocars was in breach of contract by refusing to replace the EV battery after the accident.
He contended that the battery was under warranty.
He is seeking damages for, among other things, loss of use of the car for 470 days, amounting to more than $112,000, and the costs of repairing the car at another workshop, totalling more than $105,000.
TTS denied the alleged breach.
It contended that the issue with the battery was due to the rear-end collision, and the warranty booklet excludes coverage for any damage arising from a collision or accident.
TTS said the third-party insurers for the driver of the car that hit the Porsche had rejected the claim for replacement of the damaged EV battery. The reason for the rejection was not stated in TTS’ defence to the lawsuit.
It said an independent assessment of the car later established that the battery was damaged as a result of the accident.
It has also counterclaimed against Mr Ling for the costs of repairs carried out on the car and storage costs for six months.
The lawsuit was filed as a magistrate’s court case in 2024, but an order was made on Jan 16 for the case to be transferred to the High Court.
The driver of the Mazda CX-5 that rear-ended the Porsche has also been sued.
Mr Ling bought his car from TTS on March 13, 2021. The purchase price was understood to be about $450,000.
The contract that was signed stated that the car is covered under the dealer’s warranty against defects and workmanship for five years from the date of registration.
The vehicle was registered in his name six days later on March 19.
On Jan 10, 2024, Mr Ling took the car to TTS’ workshop, about a month after a warning message indicated an “electrical system fault”.
The car’s 12-volt battery, which is separate from the EV battery powering the motors, was found to be weak or faulty.
TTS recommended that Mr Ling replace the 12-volt battery if the message appears again.
On Feb 18, 2024, the car broke down and was towed to TTS’ workshop. Checks found that the 12-volt battery was weak or faulty and that one of the cells of the car’s EV battery was also weak.
On April 29, 2024, or 71 days later, the EV battery was replaced under the dealer’s warranty, while Mr Ling paid $5,995 for a replacement 12-volt battery.
The following day, the car was rear-ended and suffered minor damage to its boot cover.
The Porsche, which was stationary at the time, was hit by the Mazda at the exit of a carpark.
On May 31, 2024, the Porsche was sent to TTS for repair. TTS initially arranged for Mr Ling to collect his car on June 13, 2024, but on that day the firm told him the vehicle could not be collected.
According to court papers filed by TTS, a diagnostic test indicated that the EV battery was faulty and had degraded.
The car ended up being kept at the workshop for about 278 days, until around March 5, 2025.
According to court papers filed by Mr Ling, he checked with TTS for updates on the repairs but did not get any substantive response.
On July 23, 2024, he went to the workshop and received a letter from TTS stating that he could not claim against third-party insurance for the costs of replacing or repairing the EV battery.
The letter suggested that he should pay for the replacement or repairs at his own expense.
Mr Ling said he told TTS on July 25, 2024, that its continued delay in replacing or repairing the EV’s battery has caused losses to him.
He said TTS discouraged him from towing the car away, saying it could impact the ongoing discussions with the third-party insurers.
On July 31, 2024, TTS asked him to pay for the costs of dismantling the housing of the EV battery before replacement or repair works could proceed.
On Aug 8, 2024, his lawyers at the time sent a letter demanding that TTS repair the car under warranty, return the costs of the 12-volt battery and pay damages for loss of use of the vehicle.
On March 5, 2025, he managed to tow the car to another workshop called Hybrid Shop, which completed the repairs on July 4, 2025.
Mr Ling asserted that the car was not of satisfactory quality, citing the 12-volt battery that became defective less than three years after he bought the car and the recurring issue of the faulty EV battery.
Represented by Mr Joseph Lee and Mr Benjamin Ow, he also pointed out that the car’s coolant pump becoming faulty in September 2025 was another instance of the car not being of satisfactory quality.
In its defence, TTS contended that the warranty explicitly excludes coverage for any damage to the car arising from a collision.
TTS said that when the car was sold to Mr Ling, a standard vehicle assessment was conducted to confirm that the car was of satisfactory quality and roadworthy.
It said the third-party insurers had approved the claims for repair works for the rear tailgate, rear bumper and other parts, but had rejected the claim for replacement of the damaged battery.
TTS said it had completed all the other repairs to the vehicle.
As the replacement of the EV battery due to the accident damage fell outside the warranty contained in the warranty booklet, Mr Ling was responsible for the cost of replacement, the dealer added.