A family that obtained a $45 million products liability judgment against a now-bankrupt firm in connection with a fire that injured its members must pursue its effort to obtain payment from the firm’s insurers, units of Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, in Australia, says a federal appeals court, in affirming a lower court ruling.

Nicolette Lewis was severely burned after lighter fluid in a container caught fire and spewed over her, according to Monday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Nicolette Lewis; Alexis Lewis; Margrett Lewis; Jeffrey Lewis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.; Liberty International Underwriters.

Her twin sister, Alexis, and parents Jeffrey and Margrett also sustained burns and emotional trauma, according to the ruling.

The family filed product liability litigation against Culver City, California-based EcoSmart, which produced fire starters, and its corporate parent, Alexandria, Australia-based The Fire Co, Pty, Ltd. The claim was based on EcoSmart’s failure to supply a flame arrester on the product sold to the family. A state court found EcoSmart liable and awarded damages of more than $45 million.

Liberty Mutual units Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. and Liberty International Underwriters had provided two insurance policies to EcoSmart and TFC, both of which had forum selection and choice-of-law clauses designating Australian courts as the exclusive form and Australian law as governing, according to the ruling.

The insurance policy in place for April 2013 to April 2014 likely would have covered the Lewises’ claims, but the fire occurred in June 2014, and that policy excluded coverage for any product holding fuel unless it was fitted with a “flame arrester,” according to the ruling.

Citing the 2014-2015 policy, Liberty Mutual refused to defend or indemnify EcoSmart, and the company then declared bankruptcy.

The family sought recovery from Liberty Mutual in California, but the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled the family had to pursue their case in Australia. A three-judge appeals court panel agreed.

The Lewis family claimed that as non-signatories to the insurance policy they are not bound by the forum-selection clause, said the ruling. But this “collides with a basic premise of California law governing insurance contracts.”

“Under California law, the provisions of the insurance contract that bind the insured will also bind a third-party judgment creditor,” such as the family, said the ruling. The ruling said also enforcement of the forum-selection clause is not foreclosed by California law.

The Lewis family also contends “that litigating the case in Australia will mean, in all practical effect, that they cannot recover.”

“The forum may not make any practical difference here,” said the ruling, however. Because both insurance policies include a choice-of-law clause favoring Australian law, “even if this case remained in the district court in California, the court would likely still apply Australian law leading to the same result the Lewises see as inevitable if forced to litigate in Australia,” said the ruling, in affirming the lower court’s decision.

Attorneys in the case could not be reached for comment.