Product Inspection and Investigation Center (dba) DPI

Serving insurers, attorneys, adjusters, and forensic professionals nationwide since 1991.

When an appliance, tool, battery, HVAC component, or other product is reported as the possible cause of a loss, the first account is rarely complete. There may be a mention of a recall, a prior repair, an unusual sound, or a warning that appeared before the event. Each detail can be useful, but none of them settles the cause by itself.

The best place to begin is with the product and the facts surrounding the loss.
 

Start With the Product, Not the Theory

A brand name or general description is seldom enough to identify a product accurately. Two units that look alike may have different model numbers, components, or production dates.
 

Clear photographs of the entire product and its labels are often the most useful starting point. Look for the model and serial numbers, date code, rating plate, certification markings, and any label naming the manufacturer, importer, or distributor. Receipts, online order records, packaging, manuals, warranty papers, and registration records can fill in details that are no longer readable on the product itself.

​​

Build a Clear Account of What Happened

​​

The question is not simply whether a product was present. It is what the product was doing immediately before the event and what people actually observed.

​

Was the unit running? Was there a leak, odor, unusual sound, error code, alarm, or tripped protective device? How was the problem discovered? Who first suggested that the product was involved? If a fire department, contractor, technician, manufacturer, or retailer offered an opinion, is there a report or service record behind it?

 

Those distinctions matter. “The dryer caused the fire” is a conclusion. “The homeowner saw smoke near the dryer” is an observation. A useful technical review keeps the two separate.

​​

Keep the Product in Context

The product rarely tells the whole story by itself. Its location, orientation, connections, control settings, surrounding conditions, and visible damage can all affect how the physical evidence is interpreted.
 

When it is safe and appropriate to do so, photographs or video should show the product where it was found as well as its electrical, gas, water, venting, mounting, or other connections. Images of nearby damage and any allegedly failed, missing, detached, or altered components can also be important.

No insured, contractor, or other unqualified person should be asked to operate, handle, disassemble, or test an energized, pressurized, contaminated, unstable, or otherwise hazardous product merely to obtain information.

If the product may be important to the claim, follow the organization’s procedures before it is repaired, returned, altered, subjected to recall-remedy work, or discarded.

The product’s history is part of that context. Purchase and installation records, maintenance and repair invoices, replaced-part records, modification history, pre-loss photographs, and reports of earlier problems can help distinguish among conditions related to manufacture, installation, service, use, or post-loss handling.

​

What a Recall Can—and Cannot—Tell You

A recall can be an excellent investigative lead. It may identify a group of products, a reported hazard, a suspected failure pathway, past incidents, or a recommended remedy. It may also show where to find the model and serial numbers needed to determine whether a unit is included.

But a recall match answers only the first question: Is this product part of the recalled population?

It does not establish that the reported condition existed in this particular unit. And even when the condition is present, the physical evidence must still show whether it played a role in the loss.

Two recent CPSC notices illustrate the difference.

In a September 10, 2026 notice, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that certain AGA and La Cornue dual-fuel ranges may be missing a cap from the gas test port, allowing gas to leak and creating fire or explosion hazards. The notice identifies six affected models manufactured within a specified period and reports no incidents or injuries. In an individual loss, the exact product identifiers and the documented condition of the gas-test-port area would still matter.

In an August 20, 2026 notice, CPSC reported that water contacting the circuit board in ventilation-fan motors used in certain Airedale heat pumps can cause a short circuit and overheating, posing a fire hazard. The manufacturer reported 11 fire incidents totaling at least $2.7 million in property damage and no injuries. For a particular loss, the unit’s model and configuration, physical and electrical condition, possible water exposure, and the sequence of events would still need to be considered.

These examples come from public CPSC notices. DPI is not representing that it investigated either product.

​

When Technical Review May Be Useful

Technical review can help identify the manufacturer and exact product, compare it with recall or other technical information, document relevant components, and review installation or service history. It can also help determine whether the reported failure pathway fits the physical evidence and whether further examination or testing is likely to answer a useful question.

 

The conclusion should stay at the level the evidence supports. Identifying a product, confirming that a condition exists, and establishing loss causation are three different findings.

​

The Bottom Line

 

Good product information makes a possible product-failure inquiry more focused. The exact unit, the reported sequence of events, the product in context, and its service history provide a stronger starting point than an assumption based on appearance or recall status alone.

DPI can assist with product identification, manufacturer research, evidence inspection, and failure analysis when technical review is appropriate.

​

Sources

• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, AGA/La Cornue Dual-Fuel Range Recall, September 10, 2026

• U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Modine/Airedale Heat-Pump Ventilation-Fan Recall, August 20, 2026