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 the fire. The District Court excluded the expert’s testimony regarding causation for lacking the “qualification, reliability and fit” required by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. For similar reasons, the District Court found insufficient evidence to support the plaintiffs’ product liability claims and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

In Wang, the plaintiffs, collectively, owned a home in Voorhees, New Jersey. In 2021, the plaintiffs began leasing the home to Tyrese Maxey (Mr. Maxey), a professional NBA basketball player for the Philadelphia 76ers. Mr. Maxey had a 2018 Maserati GranTurismo that he purchased in 2020. At the time of the subject fire, the Maserati was parked in the garage. The fire occurred on the evening of December 24, 2021. Mr. Maxey testified that he was the last person in the garage at around 5:00 p.m. Later that evening, Mr. Maxey’s sister, who was visiting for the holidays, began smelling smoke. Mr. Maxey opened the laundry room adjacent to the garage and saw flames coming from underneath the garage door. He called 911 and evacuated the home.   

The Voorhees Fire Department responded and issued an incident report stating that the fire originated in the “vehicle storage area” and that the cause of ignition was “undetermined after investigation.” The Camden County Chief Fire Marshal completed an investigation report and concluded that the fire originated in the left corner of the garage in the area of household combustibles. The Fire Marshal also noted that outlets and vehicle components could not be ruled out and that “the cause of this fire was not determined.”

The plaintiffs retained their own fire investigator, who did not have any specialized background in motor vehicle fire investigations. The plaintiffs’ fire investigator placed the origin of the fire inside the engine compartment of the Maserati because the engine compartment was heavily damaged, and the vehicle hood was significantly consumed by fire. The expert also opined that “the cause of the fire cannot be determined” but that “the cause of the fire being a malfunction in the 2018 Maserati GranTurismo cannot be ruled out.”

The investigator did not address the fact that the trunk was also consumed by fire. Moreover, he acknowledged that there were still some combustibles in the engine compartment that were not severely damaged, which could indicate that the fire started elsewhere. In addition, he admitted that he never interviewed any of the residents of the home, which he admitted was relevant to his opinions. The plaintiffs’ investigator acknowledged that he was not an electrical engineer and that he could not rule out electrical activity as a cause of the fire. 

Discovery revealed that the plaintiffs retained a mechanical expert to assist with the investigation, but that expert was unable to provide an opinion as to the cause of the fire. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs sued Maserati for the damages caused to the home, alleging claims under the New Jersey Product Liability Act (PLA).  

At the close of discovery, the defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s fire investigator. The defendant also filed a motion for summary judgment.  

The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ investigator admitted that he did not have the requisite expertise to opine as to the cause of the vehicle fire. He was not a certified vehicle investigator, lacked the training in mechanical, electrical, and automotive engineering, and had no experience in designing, testing or inspecting vehicles or their components. The expert did not provide any evidence as to the cause of the fire and whether the cause was related to a product defect. The District Court found that the expert’s testimony concerning potential causes of the fire within the engine compartment must be excluded because they lacked the “qualification, reliability and fit” that Rule 702 requires.

For the same reasons, the District Court found insufficient expert support to establish any claims under PLA. The court noted that a prerequisite of any recovery under the PLA is the existence of a defective condition. In New Jersey, proving a product defect requires a showing that the defect caused an injury to a reasonably foreseeable user. Complex instrumentalities such as vehicles require expert testimony. Thus, without expert testimony as to a product defect and cause of the fire, the District Court found that the plaintiffs could not proceed with their claims under the PLA.

The court also held that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite expert support to proceed with alternative methods for proving PLA claims, including circumstantial evidence of a product defect, evidence to negate other possible causes and the indeterminate product defect test. While a plaintiff may produce circumstantial evidence of a defect, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that any defective condition at the time of the fire existed when the vehicle left the hands of the manufacturer. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to negate other possible causes because there was no opinion ruling out improper maintenance of the vehicle. Lastly, the court held that without expert testimony regarding causation, the plaintiffs could not establish a defect based on the indeterminate defect theory. For these reasons, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.   

The Wang case is a sobering reminder of the importance of effective expert testimony regarding causation when asserting product liability claims. Because of the complex nature of certain products, such as vehicles, a plaintiff cannot establish a defect through lay witness testimony. A competent and qualified expert is likely required to survive summary judgment in a product liability case. A subrogation professional, therefore, must be sure to engage the appropriate liability expert when investigating product defect claims. The Wang case also reminds us that an expert’s opinion regarding the origin of a fire is simply insufficient without a finding of causation.