Products Liability Law Reporter

Anthony and Emily Agin purchased a Thor Hurricane 34J Motor Coach from Camping World. Before taking possession of the motor coach, the Agins participated in an inspection, which identified multiple issues, including problems with the motor coach’s tires and windows. During the Agins’ first trip in the motor coach, it caught fire. Their minor children were secured in their car seats and became trapped in the vehicle. Anthony shattered the glass on the driver’s seat window and made a large enough opening for the children to escape shortly before their car seats became engulfed in flames. Anthony suffered a knee injury, as well as cuts and abrasions. Emily and the children suffered road burn and abrasions while running across hot pavement during the incident. The family also suffered PTSD.

The couple, individually and on behalf of their children, sued Thor Motor Coach, Inc., and Firefly Integrations L.L.C., which designed and manufactured the digital display that monitored the motor coach’s propane tank. Suit alleged manufacturing defect, design defect, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, res ipsa loquitur, breach of warranty, and consumer fraud.

The plaintiffs settled the children’s claims against Firefly Integrations for an undisclosed amount.

Citation: Agin v. Thor Motor Coach Inc., No. CV-22-01713-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Charles A. Wallace, AAJ member David C. Shapiro, and AAJ member Kurt D. Maahs, all of Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Alicyn M. Freeman and Robert T.A. Sullivan, both of Phoenix.

Comment: See also Gorga v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., 2024 WL 1090650 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2024). There, Julio Gorga sued Thor Motor Coach, Inc., for breach of warranty in California state court after purchasing an allegedly defective vehicle. The defendant removed the case to California federal court and sought a transfer to Indiana federal court based on a forum selection clause in Thor’s warranty agreement. Denying the motion, the district court noted that a forum selection clause is unenforceable if its enforcement would contravene a strong public policy in the forum where suit is brought. The plaintiff’s rights to a jury trial and statutory consumer protection are unwaivable under California law, the court held, noting that enforcing the defendant’s forum selection clause would encourage it to continue using its unmodified warranty agreement, which contravenes California law. Timothy J. Abeel Jr., Los Angeles, represented the plaintiff.