The Subrogation Strategist

In Wang v. Maserati N. Am., Inc., C.A. No. 23-2402, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61446, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) considered the admissibility of the opinions of plaintiffs’ liability expert and whether the plaintiffs’ product liability claims could survive summary judgment. The case arose from a fire in the garage on the plaintiffs’ property, where a Maserati vehicle was parked. The plaintiffs brought a product liability action against the vehicle manufacturer, alleging that a failure within the engine compartment caused ... Continue Reading

In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. a/s/o Miriam Perez v. Pentair Flow Techs., LLC No. 7:21-CV-6679, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36875, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (District Court) reconsidered whether the plaintiff established sufficient circumstantial evidence to move forward with its product liability claim against the defendant. The District Court, again, denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the circumstantial evidence presented by the plaintiff satisfied the two-prong test for establishing products ... Continue Reading

Unless Congress moves quickly, several amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence will take effect December 1, 2024. Below is a brief description of the amendments.

Rules of Evidence

Rule 107 is a new rule. This rule addresses illustrative aids, stating that, if such aid helps the trier of fact to understand the evidence or an argument, a party may use the aid if its utility is not substantially outweighed by the danger of, among other things, unfair prejudice. As noted under the discussion of Rule 1006, below, an illustrative aid - offered only to help the trier of ... Continue Reading

In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 18 EAP 2022, 2023 Pa. LEXIS 1715 (Dec. 22, 2023), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Supreme Court) clarified that in light of its decision in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), evidence that a product complied with industry standards is inadmissible in an action involving strict product liability.

In Tincher, the Supreme Court overruled prior case law and reaffirmed that Pennsylvania is a Second Restatement Jurisdiction. As stated in Sullivan, discussing Tincher, under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, a “seller of a product has a duty to provide a product that is free from ‘a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer or [the consumer’s] property.’ To prove breach of this duty, a ‘plaintiff must prove that a seller (manufacturer or distributor) placed on the market a product in a “defective condition.””Continue Reading