Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT—N.D. Ind.: Cooktop maker denied declaratory judgment in RV explosion case, (Nov 3, 2026)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

A Canadian forum was more appropriate as there was no operative forum-selection clause and the relevant evidence, witnesses, and events were concentrated in Québec.

In an action brought by a cooktop manufacturer seeking a determination of nonliability after a recreational vehicle containing a cooktop exploded, a federal district court in Indiana dismissed the manufacturer’s declaratory judgment action against the trailer maker. The parties’ contracts did not incorporate the manufacturer’s forum-selection clause because it was introduced after contract formation and was not affirmatively accepted. Finding Québec an available and adequate alternative forum, the court concluded that the private and public interest factors favored litigation there (Dometic Corp. v. Par Nado Inc., No. 3:26-CV-108-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind. Oct. 27, 2026)).

Background. In June 2024, a trailer manufactured by Par Nado Inc, d/b/a Safari Condo (Safari), exploded in Canada. It contained a model PI8022 cooktop manufactured by Dometic Corporation. Safari blamed the explosion on a cooktop defect, while Dometic alleged improper installation. The cooktop had been manufactured and leak-tested in Italy. Dometic maintained that it had not leaked before delivery and that its instruction book warned that overtightening the gas regulator connections could crack the regulator and cause a gas leak. The trailer involved had been built and sold in May 2019. Between 2018 and 2019, Safari purchased approximately 1,700 cooktops from Dometic. Safari submitted purchase orders to Dometic’s Elkhart, Indiana, office, which processed them, issued acknowledgments, and shipped the goods along with billing statements referring to its website Terms and Conditions of Sale. Those Terms included an Indiana forum-selection clause. Safari disputed that the Terms had become part of the parties’ contracts.

After the explosion, Safari’s insurer sought reimbursement from Dometic in December 2024, and Safari’s counsel held Dometic responsible in April 2025. In November 2025, Safari alleged that cooktop defects caused the explosion, demanded that Dometic participate in a recall and remedy the issue, and threatened litigation. Transport Canada and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also contacted Dometic regarding Safari’s recall notices. Dometic attributed the failures to installation errors, including missing support brackets and overtightened brass fittings. Safari issued a second recall notice in March 2026 identifying a repair that included adding the missing brackets. Dometic then filed this declaratory action seeking a determination of nonliability and that the limitations period for related claims had expired.

Forum selection. The court rejected Dometic’s reliance on the Terms’ Indiana choice-of-law provision because contract formation had to be determined before any disputed contractual provision could be enforced. As the parties were based in different countries and had contracted for the sale of goods, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) governed contract formation and preempted Indiana law on that issue. Safari’s purchase orders constituted valid offers, and Dometic’s acknowledgments constituted effective acceptances. The contracts were therefore formed when Safari received the acknowledgments, before Dometic introduced its Terms through later invoices and billing statements. The forum-selection clause was consequently a proposed modification.

Even if the invoices were treated as part of Dometic’s acceptance, the clause was a material alteration under the CISG and did not automatically become part of the contracts. The court also rejected Dometic’s argument that Safari accepted the clause by repeatedly accepting deliveries without objecting to the invoices. Under the CISG, a material modification requires affirmative acceptance; silence or inactivity is insufficient. Château des Charmes Wines Ltd. v. Sabaté USA Inc., 328 F.3d 528, 531 (9th Cir. 2003)). The parties’ course of dealing did not establish mutual consent to Indiana forum selection, and Safari’s purchase orders expressly prohibited changes without its authorization. Continued acceptance of deliveries was consistent with the original agreements, not necessarily acceptance of new terms. The court therefore held that the forum-selection clause was never incorporated.

Alternative forum. Applying the traditional forum non conveniens test, the court found Québec both available and adequate. Safari was headquartered there and had consented to jurisdiction and service. Québec law also permitted declaratory judgments, providing a procedural remedy equivalent to the relief Dometic sought. Dometic’s choice of Indiana received reduced deference because its declaratory action anticipated litigation in which Safari was the natural plaintiff, as the party asserting the underlying product-defect and installation claims. The court distinguished Dometic’s justification for filing preemptively from the weight owed to its forum choice. Moreover, the cooktops were manufactured in Italy, while their installation, the explosion, and subsequent investigations occurred in Canada. None of the operative events occurred in Northern Indiana.

Private interests. The private interest factors strongly favored Québec. Determining whether the cooktop failed because of a defect or improper installation required examining the installed units, Safari’s installation methods, torque practices, and leak testing. The explosion remnants and local investigative reports were in Canada, and an Indiana court could not readily compel production of third-party Canadian evidence. The manufacturer’s Indiana-based evidence consisted mainly of electronic purchasing and invoicing records, which could be produced in either forum. Essential nonparty witnesses were also located in Canada and could not be compelled to testify in Indiana. Any necessary inspection of Safari’s manufacturing facility, installation stations, and explosion remnants likewise favored Québec. Translation and enforcement concerns were neutral and did not outweigh these factors.

Public interests. Québec had the stronger local interest because the dispute concerned products incorporated into Canadian-built trailers and an explosion within its borders. Dometic’s Indiana order processing and shipping did not create a substantial local interest because the dispute concerned the cause of product failure, not order fulfillment. Although the alleged defect implicated approximately 32,000 cooktops and 145 recalled recreational vehicles across the United States, Dometic identified no Indiana vehicle owner, accident, or service provider connected to the case. The U.S. recall reflected a national interest, not a localized Northern Indiana interest. The choice-of-law factors also favored Québec. The CISG governed contract formation, while Québec law governed the tort and product-liability issues. Under Indiana’s lex loci delicti rule, the law of the place where the last event necessary to establish liability occurred applied. Because the product integration, explosion, and resulting property damage occurred in Québec, resolving the competing fault theories would require applying Québec tort law. The court also found that the jury-duty factor favored Québec given Northern Indiana’s limited local interest. Accordingly, the court granted Safari’s motion to dismiss under forum non conveniens and dismissed the action without prejudice.

The case is No. 3:26-CV-108-CCB-SJF.

Judge: Brisco, C.

Attorneys: Sarah R. Pfister (Kroger Gardis & Regas LLP) for Dometic Corp. David C. Pricer (Barrett McNagny LLP) for Par Nado Inc. d/b/a Safari Condo.

Companies: Dometic Corp.; Par Nado Inc. d/b/a Safari Condo

MainStory: TopStory JurisdictionNews MotorEquipmentNews IndianaNews