The Subrogation Strategist

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, severely burning both of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued the manufacturer, distributor and sellers of the product, alleging design defect, failure to warn, negligence, and consumer fraud. The plaintiffs produced a liability expert to support their position. The court previously dismissed most of the claims. The remaining issue was the plaintiffs’ failure‑to‑warn theory, which depended entirely on the admissibility of their liability expert’s testimony.

The defendants moved to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony on grounds that he was not qualified to opine as to the cause of the fire and that his opinions were not reliable. The court held that the expert was not qualified to testify as to the cause the fire, and that his opinions were not reliable and thus inadmissible. 

The plaintiffs’ expert opined that the product’s use of small print warnings, lack of hazard pictograms, and “safe around children & pets” imagery created an illusion of safety that misled users. He also concluded that the product’s isopropyl alcohol content caused the fire and that the manufacturer’s failure to provide stronger warnings or an open‑flame pictogram was the proximate cause of the accident. However, the expert conducted no testing, did not examine the actual container used, and relied largely on photographs, general experience, and an exemplar aerosol can.

The court noted that in order for expert testimony to be admissible, it must satisfy all three Daubert prongs—qualification, reliability, and fit for the circumstances of the case. The court found that, while the plaintiffs’ expert had general expertise in product warnings, he lacked the specialized training required to opine on fire causation. The court deemed his methodology unreliable because he performed no scientific tests, failed to rule out other ignition sources, did not consider federal or industry standards in any meaningful way, and did not explain how his proposed warnings would have altered the plaintiffs’ behavior—especially considering Mr. Ibrahim admitted he did not read the existing warnings. The court also emphasized that the expert’s conclusions lacked the necessary “why and wherefore” needed to assist a factfinder.

As a result, the court held that the plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony failed all three Daubert prongs—qualification (as to fire causation), reliability, and fit. Without admissible expert testimony, the plaintiffs could not support their remaining failure‑to‑warn claim. Accordingly, the court granted the defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony, effectively eliminating the evidentiary foundation of the plaintiffs’ case. This case serves as a cautionary tale for subrogation professionals to make sure experts have adequate qualifications for the opinions they are expected to offer and follow reliable methods and standards to support their opinions.