Well, this insurance company is suing everybody involved over a fire, even their own customer. I’m not sure that is good for customer satisfaction, but that’s just me. I suppose I should be happy I wasn’t named in the suit since we report recalls here and in the Car Pro Show newsletter every single week.
An insurance company is taking Nissan North America, a Delaware car dealership, and a local vehicle owner to court after a 2017 Nissan Pathfinder allegedly sparked a devastating garage fire that destroyed one home, damaged another, and caused more than $700,000 in losses.
The complaint, filed July 28 in Delaware Superior Court by Trumbull Insurance Co., stems from a June 2024 incident in Newark, Del. According to court documents, smoke and flames were first noticed coming from the garage of the Pathfinder owner’s home. A neighbor saw the blaze and quickly notified the homeowner. Fire crews extinguished the flames, but the fire reignited less than a day later. This time, the blaze spread rapidly through the residence, leaving it gutted, and extended to the neighboring property, causing extensive smoke, water, and fire damage to the structure and a 2016 Acura parked outside.
The lawsuit argues the cause of the fire was tied to an unresolved safety defect covered under a 2019 recall of multiple Nissan vehicles. That recall, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, warned of a potential brake fluid leak in the anti-lock braking system actuator that could result in an electrical short and fire. The recall affected certain 2016–18 Maximas, 2015–18 Muranos, and 2017–19 Pathfinders.
The Pathfinder’s owner, the suit says, brought the vehicle to Sheridan Nissan in Newark after receiving the recall notice. According to the filing, the dealership told the owner the necessary replacement parts were unavailable. Despite several service visits over the following months, Sheridan allegedly never performed the recall repair, never obtained the required components, and never warned the owner of the risk associated with operating or parking the vehicle indoors.
Trumbull Insurance alleges Nissan failed to provide adequate parts to remedy the defect in a timely manner, which left affected owners vulnerable to fire hazards. The complaint accuses Sheridan Nissan of negligence for not pursuing the repair parts, not carrying out the recall work, and failing to notify the customer of the dangers.
The suit also names the Pathfinder’s owner as a defendant, saying they acted negligently by continuing to drive and store what the insurer calls a “known hazardous vehicle” in close proximity to neighboring homes.
The insurer is seeking to recover costs from claims paid to its policyholder, the neighboring homeowner whose property and vehicle sustained severe damage. The company is asking the court to hold Nissan, the dealership, and the vehicle owner liable for the destruction.
Trumbull argues the Pathfinder was “defective and unreasonably dangerous” and says Nissan should be held accountable for failing to supply parts or ensure that the recall was properly addressed. The complaint frames the dealership’s inaction as an additional breakdown in the safety process designed to protect customers and their communities.
Vehicle recalls are a common safety mechanism in the auto industry, but they can expose automakers and dealerships to liability when defects go unrepaired. Federal regulators allow automakers to schedule recall remedies, but shortages of parts and communication lapses between manufacturers and dealers can delay fixes for months or even years. Consumer advocates have long warned that vehicles with open recalls pose risks not only to drivers but also to bystanders, as this case illustrates.
For Nissan, the lawsuit comes at a time when automakers are under heightened scrutiny for how they manage recalls and customer notifications. Sheridan Nissan has not commented publicly, and Nissan’s corporate communications office said it does not discuss pending litigation. Attorneys for Trumbull also declined to comment.
The case highlights the complex chain of responsibility in modern recalls—stretching from manufacturer to dealership to consumer—and raises broader questions about accountability when potential safety hazards go unresolved.