While recognizing the general rule that an employer is not required to preserve evidence in support of an employee’s third-party product liability claim, (see Murphy v. Target Prods., 580 N.E.2d 687 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)), the court, (apparently influenced by defendant’s conduct), concluded that, “under the facts and circumstances, Midwest and Drew had a ‘special relationship’ to support the recognition of a duty to preserve evidence from the explosion. Not only was Midwest Drew’s employer at the time of the explosion, Midwest knew the pump and related items were needed for the IOSHA investigation and had specifically been instructed by an IOSHA officer not to dispose of them. Darling witnessed the explosion and knew that Drew had been gravely injured while working for Midwest. Midwest knew and reasonably should have known that Drew might likely have a claim against the manufacturer of the pump involved in the explosion. A mere seven days after the explosion, and after having been instructed by an IOSHA official to preserve the evidence, Darling instead disposed of all the equipment and debris, as well as Drew’s clothing and wallet. Under these facts and circumstances, we conclude that Froman has identified a ‘cognizable relationship’ with Midwest.” See Glotzback v. Froman, 827 N.E.2d 105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).