When will Utah courts exclude late expert testimony in products liability cases? Blank v. Garff Enterprises Inc. Explained

In Blank v. Garff Enterprises Inc., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical intersection of expert disclosure requirements and products liability claims, providing important guidance for practitioners handling complex tort cases.

Background and Facts

The Blanks were involved in a serious collision when a drunk driver rear-ended their Mercedes SUV at over 100 mph, causing multiple impacts and a partial rollover. They sued Mercedes entities claiming the vehicle’s airbag defects enhanced their injuries beyond what they would have suffered in a crashworthy vehicle. After liability discovery closed, Mercedes moved for summary judgment on Kathleen’s claims, arguing no evidence supported a driver-side defect theory. In response, the Blanks submitted three new expert declarations for the first time opining that defects caused Kathleen’s enhanced injuries.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether late expert disclosures violate Rule 26 disclosure requirements triggering mandatory exclusion under Rule 37(f), versus discretionary sanctions under Rule 16; (2) whether expert testimony is necessary to prove defect and causation in complex products liability cases; and (3) whether alleged evidentiary errors warranted reversal.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied Rule 37(f)’s mandatory exclusion standard rather than Rule 16’s discretionary approach, finding the Blanks failed to supplement their expert disclosures as required by Rule 26(e). The failure was neither harmless nor excused by good cause, as it would require reopening discovery and frustrated orderly case resolution. Without expert testimony, summary judgment was proper because airbag system functioning requires specialized engineering knowledge beyond average jurors, and expert testimony is essential for both defect identification and causation in such complex cases.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners must strictly comply with Rule 26 disclosure deadlines and supplementation requirements. Late disclosure of crucial expert opinions—particularly in response to dispositive motions—will likely result in exclusion unless clear harmlessness or good cause exists. The ruling also confirms that complex products liability cases involving specialized technical knowledge require expert testimony to establish both defect and causation elements, making early and comprehensive expert development essential for case viability.