Correct:

This is becoming a standard practice now by manufacturers if you PLACE THEM ON NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUBROGATE (i.e filing a claim) a loss and later it is determined that their product not involved. I also know several major insurance carrier clients that are now also considering naming the plaintiff fire investigator himself/herself directly as a cross-complaint (going after their E&O Insurance) if they do not adhere to ASTM and NFPA standards and spoliate the scene prior to any defense investigation.

That is why I always recommend to my clients that they give a Courtesy Notice of Intent to Inspect. This gives the other parties the opportunity to decide if they want to be present or not. Plus, it negates a potential spoliation claim later as they were given notice of the incident and decided against being present.

My Specific wording to my clientele is this, followed by a list of the KNOWN parties:

"A secondary, potentially destructive inspection will be necessary in this case, in order to determine many of the specifics in the case. These specifics include measurements of system tolerances, electrical and mechanical system component identification, evidence identification and preservation, potential testing. It is recommended that the following appropriate parties be given the opportunity to be present to examine the coach remains and conduct their own investigation with this firm in attendance."