Treat Your AI Like an Opposing Expert: Rule 702 Lessons for Evaluating AI Output

Attorneys using generative AI can borrow a familiar litigation skill: Evaluate AI-generated output the way they would evaluate an opposing expert witness opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. An expert witness cannot simply “waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” without adequate foundation. Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5 (7th Cir. 1999). Nor can an expert bridge the gap between data and conclusion with nothing more than ipse dixit — the expert’s own say-so. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997).

Rule 702 imposes that discipline directly. It requires expert testimony to be “based on sufficient facts or data,” be “the product of reliable principles and methods,” and reflect “a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” So, when an opposing expert offers an opinion, a litigator’s instinct is not to accept it but to probe its basis and reliability.

Continue reading “Treat Your AI Like an Opposing Expert: Rule 702 Lessons for Evaluating AI Output”

In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Winter 2026

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Instruction Malfunction: Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $1B Verdict Due to Faulty Jury Instructions

By Sophia M. Landress & Benjamin R. Grossman

Preserving objections to jury instructions can be the difference between paying a significant judgment or making a plaintiff prove their case again at trial. The appellate panel held that the trial court ought to have instructed the jury properly about the crashworthiness doctrine, rather than only instructing the jury on the standard strict liability doctrine.

A Win for the Gig Economy: First Appellate Ruling on Florida’s TNC Statute Affirms Independent Contractor Protections

By Traci T. McKee, Dona Trnovska Gilliland, & Andrew J. Koehler

The TNC Statute generally shelters transportation network companies (TNCs) from vicarious liability for drivers’ actions if certain conditions are met. Abner v. Lyft Fla., Inc. not only reinforces a textual reading of the legislature’s independent contractor structure but also sets a high bar for negligent hiring claims.

Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims

As toxic tort claims alleging chronic illness from alleged chemical exposure continue to rise nationwide, the recent Kansas federal court decision in Jefferies v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., 2026 WL 958172, (April 9, 2026), highlights the power of statutes of repose, which can bar latent disease claims, even when the injury is discovered decades after exposure.

Case Background

In Jefferies, plaintiffs living near the defendant’s chemical manufacturing facility alleged that years of ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions caused cancer and miscarriages, some dating back decades. However, the Kansas statute of repose imposes a strict 10-year cutoff: No claim may proceed for exposures more than 10 years before suit, regardless of when the injury came to light. Seizing on this statute, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred. Agreeing with the defendants, the court rejected arguments that the discovery rule, ongoing emissions, and a continuing duty to warn tolled the statute of repose, emphasizing that the statute is a “general grant of immunity” that abolishes claims arising outside its window.

Continue reading “Interplay Between Statutes of Repose and Statutes of Limitations in Latent Disease Exposure Claims”

Instruction Malfunction: Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $1B Verdict Due to Faulty Jury Instructions

Preserving objections to jury instructions can be the difference between paying a significant judgment or making a plaintiff prove their case again at trial.

In October 2023, a Philadelphia jury handed down a mammoth $980 million verdict for the plaintiff in Amagasu et al. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America et al., due to an allegedly defective seat belt. The verdict included $800 million in punitive damages. Amagasu et al. v. Fred Beans Family of Dealerships, et al., No. 1594 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 22, 2025). The presiding judge increased the compensatory portion of the verdict, pushing the total award past $1 billion.

Continue reading “Instruction Malfunction: Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates $1B Verdict Due to Faulty Jury Instructions”

In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Fall 2025

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Register to Do Business, Register to Be Sued? Illinois’ New Jurisdictional Trap for Toxic Tort Litigants

By Elizabeth C. Christen, Jenna Seiler, Natalie Abdou & Bryan D. Pasciak

For companies operating nationwide, rules governing where they can be sued are consequential — especially in high-exposure toxic tort litigation. Illinois’ enactment of SB 328 raises the stakes in these cases even more, conferring general jurisdiction over companies who register or merely transact business in Illinois.

Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered

By Eric M. Friedman

Even “[a] supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” without passing muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Clark v. Takata Corp. (7th Cir. 1999). A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina shows this principle is at play not only when critiquing an expert’s methodology, but also the expert’s expertise.

No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

By Alena Markley

A summary judgment from the Southern District of Georgia shows the critical role of defect evidence (or lack thereof) in negligence claims involving medical devices. In Rudzinskas, allegations that a medical device malfunctioned were not sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on negligent manufacturing and failure-to-warn claims.

A Win for the Gig Economy: First Appellate Ruling on Florida’s TNC Statute Affirms Independent Contractor Protections

In 2017, the Florida Legislature sought to regulate “Transportation Network Companies,” (TNCs), like Uber and Lyft, by passing section 627.748, Florida Statutes (2017) (TNC Statute). As discussed in more detail below, the TNC Statute generally shelters TNCs from vicarious liability for drivers’ actions if certain conditions are met. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently issued the first state appellate ruling, confirming the protections afforded to TNCs under this Statute. See Abner v. Lyft Fla., Inc., No. 3D24-0479, 2025 WL 2969993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2025). The Abner court agreed with the reasoning of the trial court and affirmed summary judgment for Lyft on a claim of vicarious liability under the TNC Statute, as well as a claim of negligent hiring and retention of the driver.

The case stemmed from a July 5, 2017, accident where a car driven by Rolando Cepero collided with a motorcycle driven by Dexter Franklin. At the time of the accident, Cepero was a ride-share contractor for Lyft providing a ride requested by a passenger through the Lyft platform. Plaintiff Natasha Abner, individually and as Franklin’s Guardian, sued Lyft claiming it was vicariously liable as Cepero’s “employer.” With her other claim, Abner also alleged Lyft negligently hired and retained Cepero. Lyft moved for summary judgment based on the TNC Statute, which went into effect just before the accident took place. The trial court granted summary judgment and Abner appealed.

Continue reading “A Win for the Gig Economy: First Appellate Ruling on Florida’s TNC Statute Affirms Independent Contractor Protections”