on manufacturers to recall and/or retrofit a defective product because the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions have rejected such an obligation. See, e.g., Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 85 Hawaii 336, 944 P.2d 1279, 1298-1300 (Haw.1997) (citing cases and stating that “virtually every court that has confronted the issue head-on” has rejected this duty); see also Burke v. Deere & Co., 6 F.3d 497, 508 n. 16 (8th Cir.1993) (restating that no such duty exists under Iowa law), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1115, 114 S.Ct. 1063, 127 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); Wallace v. Dorsey Trailers Southeast, Inc., 849 F.2d 341, 344 (8th Cir.1988) (affirming district court’s conclusion that Missouri does not recognize a duty to retrofit); Gregory v. Cincinnati Inc., 450 Mich. 1, 538 N.W.2d 325, 333 (Mich.1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, plaintiffs negligence claims are
holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend holding there is no continuing duty to repair or recall holding that there was no basis for continuing an appeal in light of  317b holding that defendants intentional acts to infringe plaintiffs trademark supported district courts recall order