The Subrogation Strategist

On April 7, 2026, the Governor of Kansas signed a new law, 2025 Kan. SB 36, that amends and repeals K.S.A. 60-465. K.S.A. 60-465 addresses the rules of evidence related to the admissibility of testimony from lay and expert witnesses. As amended, lay witness opinions must be helpful to clearly understanding the testimony of the witness or determining a fact in issue. The former statute required a lay witness to provide an opinion helpful to a “clearer” understanding of the testimony of the witness.

With respect to experts, a witness who qualifies as an expert based on knowledge ... Continue Reading

In Qasim v. Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 21-18744, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5064, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey considered whether the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinions were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert test. The case arose after one plaintiff, Ibrahim Qasim, sprayed an entire sixty‑four‑ounce container of EcoLogic Bed Bug Killer 2 throughout his apartment the morning of September 2, 2019. Hours later, when co‑plaintiff Nouh Qasim turned on the gas stove to make coffee, a rapid fire erupted ... Continue Reading

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 the 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 ... Continue Reading

In Rich v. Plumbing No. 1:23-cv-00705-SAG, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2263, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland considered two motions for summary judgment, each arguing that the court should exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. Although the court allowed the plaintiff to file a supplemental brief, it ultimately granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Consequently, the court deemed the testimony of the plaintiff’s one and only expert inadmissible.

The plaintiff, Whitney Rich, on behalf of C.W., brought this action after her ... Continue Reading

In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142262, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiffs’ liability expert met the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and could testify that a filter pump for an aquarium tank was defectively designed and caused a fire at the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert on grounds that the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the reliability element of Rule 702 because the expert never conducted physical testing on the filter pump. The court found that the cognitive testing employed by the expert through various methods, including visual inspections of the evidence, a review of photographs of the scene and literature from the manufacturer, and research on similar products, was sufficiently reliable to admit his opinion.Continue Reading