Product Development Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine that the Fan is Not Defective
Posted on October 13, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Allstate insured L&J Home Improvements, LLC (“L&J”), which was owned and operated by Julie and Luis Hernandez. In or around 2003, L&J purchased a two-story, wood frame residence built in 1888 that is located at 231 N. Walnut St. in Colorado Springs, Colorado (the “residence”). After the purchase, L&J performed a remodel on the residence in or around 2006. The remodel included an updated electrical system and fixtures.
As part of the remodel, an electrical contractor installed three identical bathroom exhaust/ventilation fan/lights (“fan units”). One fan unit was installed in the upper-level half bath, one fan unit was installed in the lower-level bathroom, and one fan unit was installed in the upper-level bathroom.
A resident, who shared the upper-level bathroom where the fan was located, said that the fan was often left on after bathroom use and the fan had begun to make a noise when turned on several weeks before the incident.
A fire occurred in the residence the evening of February 25, 2021 (the “incident”). The Colorado Springs Fire Department (the “CSFD”) conducted an investigation. The CSFD considered the fan as an ignition source.
Defendant Broan-Nutone manufactured and sold the fan. When the fan was manufactured in the fall of 2005, Broan-Nutone considered itself subject to the following certification requirements created by Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”).
Allstate brought claims against Broan-Nutone for strict product liability, negligence, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness.
On February 9, 2024, Broan-Nutone provided Allstate with its expert disclosures. It listed David Farchione as a non-retained expert who did not need to provide an expert report. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Farchione.
Product Development Expert Witness
David Farchione has a bachelor’s in engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering, where he graduated and entered the workforce in 1996 working for UL in relation to UL product certifications.
Farchione gained experience in product development, design, manufacture, and failure analysis during his four years working for UL and approximately fifteen years working for Broan. During his career, he has worked in engineering and consulting regarding certifications obtained from UL, which includes certifications specific to exhaust fans, like the Model Fan.
Discussion by the Court
Qualification
Allstate challenged Farchione’s qualifications to provide an expert opinion that the fan was not defective. Allstate argued that Farchione’s only basis for opining that the fan is not defective is that it is UL certified and that it was designed, built, and evaluated by engineers.
Broan-Nutone did not assert that Farchione was involved in the design, manufacturing, or evaluation of the fan, either through Farchione’s work at UL or his work at Broan-Nutone.
Allstate did not contest Farchione’s qualifications to testify about the UL certification process and how it works, given his experience working at UL and his experience at Broan-Nutone with UL product certification. However, the issue is whether Farchione’s experience with UL certifications allows him to express opinions, drawn only from the UL certification process, that the fan was not defective. The Court found that for Farchione to testify that the fan at issue in this case was not defective would go beyond the “reasonable confines of his subject area.”
Neither Broan-Nutone in its response, or Farchione in his deposition, has explained why Farchione’s UL knowledge allowed him to opine that the fan at issue in this case had no defect. For instance, Farchione did not state that the UL documentation for the fan involved testing for design defects or manufacturing defects.
The Court found that Broan-Nutone has not explained why Farchione is qualified, solely based on his knowledge of the UL certification process, to bridge the gap between a product being “UL certified” and the product being “not defective” without any examination or testing of the fan at issue.
Methodology
Allstate also argued that Farchione’s opinion that the fan was not defective should be excluded because he lacked a reliable methodology for his conclusion.
As the Court has already noted, Farchione did not conduct any testing or evaluation of the fan. As a result, he applied no testing methodology in opining that the fan is not defective. Moreover, neither Farchione nor Defendant identified any methodology that he applied in concluding that, because the fan was UL certified and was designed by engineers, it is not defective.
Allstate challenged the basis for Farchione’s opinion that the fan was “fit for sale,” a conclusion which Farchione reached based on the fact that “[t]here’s been ultimately millions of these [fans] sold over the years. And there’s not any huge issues with these particular problems — or these particular products.” When Allstate asked Farchione to provide more specific figures regarding the number of problems with this model of fan, he stated that “I don’t know how many exactly, but it’s, you know, tens.”
As a result, the Court found that Farchione’s testimony about sales data is not admissible. First, Broan-Nutone failed to establish that data given to Farchione by his (or the Defendant’s) attorneys constitutes the kind of data that would reasonably be relied upon by experts on product defects. Second, Farchione did not identify any other source of data he relied upon. Thus, Farchione’s opinion that the fan is fit for sale, insofar as that opinion relied on sales data, lacked a factual basis.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of David Farchione.
Key Takeaway:
Farchione was not allowed to testify that the fan was not defective based on the fan’s UL certification or because sales data showed that there were few complaints about the fan.
The Court is not required to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert and may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Allstate Indemnity Company V. Broan-Nutone, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 1:23cv743 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, Colorado |
| Order Date: | October 09, 2025 |
