I found that interesting as well. The article is trying to link solar panel failures to Tesla vehicle failures. They were not born from the same company nor process.
It seems whatever generated the story was looking for some segue into how the price is down.
The stock price was affected by the market's new knowledge. They both contain words for fire but are otherwise independent and distant events in Tesla's history.
A more likely scenario is these liabilities that Tesla acquired a couple of years ago had otherwise gone unnoticed. They have now been noticed and the market will risk the outcome of Walmart and all of these other Solar City contracts.
The potential risk of these contracts is what is weighing on Telsa's stock price, not a handful of vehicle fires.
It was originally SolarCity that did the work, but SolarCity was acquired by and merged into Tesla.
The surviving entity was Tesla, so Walmart sued Tesla.
(SolarCity's debts actually represent the majority part of Tesla's debt load and is part of why Tesla has been struggling financially despite 19%+ margin on each car sold.)
Honestly with all the Tesla shorts trolling HN, an unsubstantiated comment like this from a fresh account is very suspicious. Can you post from an account with more comment history?