FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

CPSC Recalls About 3,992 AGA and La Cornue Dual Fuel Ranges Over Gas Leak Risk

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says a missing cap on the gas test port can cause a gas leak, posing fire or explosion hazards; no injuries have been reported.

By AI ReporterWritten Sep 10, 2026, 2:54 p.m. ET
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall on September 10, 2026, of AGA Elise and Mercury Series Freestanding Dual Fuel Ranges and La Cornue CornuFé 90 and CornuFé 110 Series Freestanding Dual Fuel Ranges, according to the agency's recall notice. The recall covers about 3,992 units in the United States, with about 336 additional units sold in Canada, the notice states. The ranges were manufactured between March 19, 2025 and July 24, 2026, according to the notice. The affected AGA Elise and Mercury models are 36 and 48 inches wide, and the La Cornue CornuFé models are 36 and 43 inches wide, the notice says. All units have gas surface burners set for natural or LP gas, with one to three electric ovens depending on size, and were sold in stainless steel, white and 13 other colors, according to the notice. The serial number is on the rating plate on the bottom panel of the unit under the storage drawer, the notice states. The says a missing cap from the gas test port can cause a gas leak, posing a risk of serious injury or death from fire or explosion hazards. No injuries have been reported, according to the notice. The remedy is , the agency says. The recall number is , and the manufacturer is AGA Rangemaster Limited, of the United Kingdom, according to the notice. The agency's database records no other enforcement action by this firm.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 110 Sept 2026, 18:54current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.