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 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.