Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over an insurer’s warranty claims against an RV manufacturer but that the insurer’s tort claims were properly before the court.

Byron and Stephanie Crain owned a 2023 Thor Compass 23TW RV. After the RV spontaneously combusted, the Crains’ insurer, Progressive Preferred Insurance Co., paid the couple over $147,500 for the RV’s damage. Progressive filed suit against Thor Motor Coach, Inc., in Arizona state court, claiming breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, and products liability. The defendant removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue, arguing that a forum selection clause in the warranty agreement the Crains signed required the insurer’s claims to be brought in Indiana.

Granting in part, the district court noted that the warranty agreement here stated that claims for breach of express and implied warranties must be filed in Indiana, where the RV was manufactured. The warranty agreement’s choice-of-law clause provided that Indiana law applies to any and all causes of action related to the warranty, the court said, finding that the clause therefore applies to the insurer’s claims for breach of express and implied warranty. The court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff’s tort claims fell outside the scope of the warranty agreement’s forum selection clause. The insurer could bring such tort claims absent any agreement between Thor and the Crains, the court reasoned, adding that it was Thor’s actions—not the warranty agreement—that gave rise to the insurer’s products liability claims.

Citation: Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 2024 WL 233185 (D. Ariz. Jan. 22, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Kenneth Januszewski, Phoenix.