The push to electrify classic and modern vehicles is gaining momentum, driven by environmental goals and technological advances. However, beneath the surface of this promising trend lie significant, often overlooked, risks. The recent lawsuit known as the Kerekes case serves as a stark, public lesson in what can go wrong when vehicle conversions are mismanaged.

This legal action, involving allegations against conversion company Polykup and its founder, Sam Polyak, centers on a failed project to convert a 1967 Ford Mustang to electric power. The dispute provides a concrete, real-world framework for examining the pitfalls of the conversion industry. It moves the conversation beyond theoretical benefits into the hard realities of contracts, technical execution, and financial liability.

For consumers considering an EV conversion and for businesses operating in this space, the Kerekes case is a cautionary tale. It reveals systemic vulnerabilities in project management, communication, and technical competency that can turn an exciting dream into a costly legal nightmare. This analysis will dissect the key lessons from the case, outlining the specific risks it exposes for all parties involved.

Understanding the Core Allegations of the Kerekes Case

The plaintiff, Matthew Kerekes, contracted with Polykup to convert his classic Mustang into a fully electric vehicle. According to the lawsuit, the project was plagued by problems from the outset. Key allegations include significant cost overruns far beyond the original estimate, extensive project delays stretching years past the promised completion date, and ultimately, the delivery of a vehicle that was allegedly inoperable and unsafe.

The case alleges breach of contract, fraud, and violations of state consumer protection laws. It claims the customer paid substantial sums—reports suggest over $100,000—for a project that was never satisfactorily completed. The vehicle was reportedly returned with critical systems, including brakes and steering, in a dangerous state, alongside a battery and powertrain system that failed to function as promised.

These allegations, if proven, point to a fundamental breakdown in the client-service provider relationship. They highlight a scenario where expectations were not just unmet but were catastrophically violated, leading to financial loss and a potentially hazardous product. It underscores that an EV conversion is not a simple upgrade; it is a complex, engineering-intensive rebuild of a vehicle’s core systems.

Technical and Safety Risks Exposed by Failed Conversions

Beyond the financial and contractual disputes, the Kerekes case brings critical technical risks into sharp focus. A proper EV conversion requires integrating high-voltage battery systems, electric motors, power controllers, and thermal management into an existing vehicle chassis never designed for them.

Compromised Vehicle Integrity

The lawsuit suggests the structural and mechanical modifications made to the Mustang were substandard. Improper mounting of heavy battery packs can severely compromise a vehicle’s center of gravity and structural rigidity. In a collision, poorly secured batteries become lethal projectiles. Furthermore, hacking into a vehicle’s frame to accommodate new components can weaken critical safety structures, nullifying the original crash protection.

Electrical System Dangers

A faulty high-voltage electrical system presents severe risks of electrocution, electrical fire, and thermal runaway—a condition where batteries overheat and ignite uncontrollably. The case implies the installed systems were not reliably integrated or properly isolated. Without rigorous testing and certification, a converted vehicle can be a rolling hazard, endangering the driver, passengers, and first responders in an accident.

The Business and Contractual Pitfalls for Consumers

For consumers, the case is a masterclass in what to avoid when commissioning a major conversion. The primary lesson is the absolute necessity of a detailed, ironclad contract. Vague agreements about scope, timeline, and cost are invitations for dispute. The Kerekes contract allegedly suffered from these ambiguities, allowing for continuous “scope creep” and unbudgeted expenses.

Due diligence is another non-negotiable step. Researching a converter’s track record, visiting their shop, and speaking to past clients are essential. The founder of the company in question, Sam Polyak, and his firm became the subject of this lawsuit after other clients reportedly came forward with similar complaints. This pattern suggests that deeper investigation by early customers might have revealed red flags.

Finally, payment schedules should be tied to clear, verifiable milestones—not simply the passage of time. Releasing large sums upfront, as alleged in this case, removes leverage from the customer and can fund a converter’s operational overhead rather than the specific project. A structured, milestone-based payment plan aligns the interests of both parties.

Implications for the EV Conversion Industry

The Kerekes lawsuit does not just impact the immediate parties; it casts a shadow over the entire specialty conversion industry. Trust is the foundational currency for any business dealing in high-cost, custom projects. High-profile failures erode consumer confidence and can attract increased regulatory scrutiny.

The industry lacks universal standards and certifications for converted vehicles. While some reputable shops adhere to strict engineering protocols and seek third-party validation, others operate in a regulatory gray area. Cases like this could accelerate calls for standardized safety certifications, mandatory liability insurance for converters, and clearer definitions of what constitutes a “roadworthy” conversion.

It creates a dichotomy: responsible converters who invest in proper engineering, testing, and transparent business practices may be unfairly tarred by the actions of less scrupulous operators. The onus is on the industry to self-police, establish best practices, and differentiate professional operations from amateur endeavors. Companies like Polykup becoming central to such litigation serve as a stark reminder of the consequences when projects go awry.

How to Mitigate Risk When Commissioning a Conversion

Learning from this case, both consumers and reputable converters can take proactive steps to mitigate risk.

For Consumers:

• Demand Specificity: Contracts must detail every component, labor hour, phase of work, and the exact definition of “complete.” Include explicit warranties for parts and workmanship.
• Verify Credentials: Look for shops with certified electricians or engineers on staff. Ask for documentation of completed, road-legal conversions.
• Insist on Testing: Require a third-party inspection or dyno/road test report before final payment and acceptance. Safety systems, particularly brakes and battery isolation, must be certified by a qualified mechanic.

For Reputable Converters:

• Under-Promise and Over-Deliver: Set realistic timelines and budgets with built-in contingencies. Transparent communication about challenges builds trust.
• Document Everything: Maintain detailed logs of work, changes, and client communications. This provides clarity and protection for both sides.
• Prioritize Safety Protocols: Adopt and publish a strict safety standard for all conversions, going beyond minimum legal requirements. Make this a core part of your marketing to educate clients and set professional expectations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the main issue in the Kerekes lawsuit?

The core issue was a failed electric vehicle conversion project. The customer alleged breach of contract, fraud, and consumer law violations after paying a significant sum for a conversion that resulted in years of delays, massive cost overruns, and the delivery of an allegedly inoperable and unsafe vehicle.

What are the biggest safety risks in a bad EV conversion?

The greatest risks involve the high-voltage battery system and vehicle integrity. These include potential for electrocution, catastrophic electrical fires from thermal runaway, and compromised vehicle crash safety due to improper battery mounting or structural modifications that weaken the chassis.

How can I protect myself when hiring a conversion shop?

Protect yourself with an extremely detailed contract that specifies parts, labor, milestones, and final deliverables. Conduct thorough due diligence on the shop’s history and past clients. Never pay the full cost upfront; use a milestone-based payment schedule tied to inspected and verified progress.

Does the Kerekes case mean all EV conversions are risky?

No, but it highlights that conversions are complex, high-stakes projects. The risk level depends entirely on the competency, ethics, and engineering rigor of the conversion shop. Reputable, experienced shops with transparent practices successfully complete safe, reliable conversions every day.

What should a good conversion contract include?

A robust contract should include a full itemized list of parts (make, model, quantity), a labor breakdown by project phase, a detailed timeline with milestone dates, a total fixed price or a clear “not-to-exceed” maximum, a defined payment schedule linked to milestones, and explicit warranties covering both parts and workmanship.

Could this case lead to more regulation for conversion companies?

It’s a distinct possibility. High-profile failures often prompt regulatory response. The case may fuel advocacy for mandatory safety certifications, standardized installation protocols, and stricter business licensing requirements for companies performing high-voltage vehicle modifications to protect consumers.

Conclusion

The Kerekes case is more than a singular legal dispute; it is a critical case study for the burgeoning EV conversion market. It tells us that the enthusiasm for electrification must be tempered by rigorous technical standards, transparent business practices, and informed consumer vigilance. The risks—financial, legal, and most importantly, safety-related—are substantial and real when projects are undertaken without adequate expertise and accountability.

For the industry to mature and gain widespread trust, the lessons from this case must be heeded. Reputable converters will differentiate themselves through professionalism and safety, while consumers must become educated buyers. The future of vehicle electrification, including the cherished practice of converting classics, depends on building a foundation that prioritizes reliability and safety just as much as innovation. The alternative is more stalled projects, more lawsuits, and a dangerous erosion of confidence in a transformative technology.