Jay Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forest River Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Montana rules on the parties’ motions in limine in a putative class action concerning alleged defects in the seven-way wiring system of Forest River fifth-wheel trailers. The court denies, grants in part, or reserves ruling on motions addressing expert damages testimony, recalls and remedial measures, warranty claims, fire evidence, hearsay, financial-condition evidence, expert opinions, and other trial issues. The court’s order is dated November 25, 2025.

Holdings

1. Rojas may testify regarding class-wide damages and repair costs because his engineering experience with root-cause analysis, electrical failures, inspections, and repair methods qualified him to offer the opinions and the proposed testimony satisfied the court's Rule 702 reliability requirements at the motion-in-limine stage.
2. Evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, product defect, notice or knowledge of a defect, or the need for a warning, but may be admissible for purposes recognized by Federal Rule of Evidence 407, including impeachment or disputed feasibility of precautionary measures. The court excluded evidence concerning recalls of RV models outside the Montana class, while reserving a final ruling on the 2024 Puma and Cedar Creek recalls.
3. The court excluded evidence concerning Forest River's 2015 NHTSA consent decree and warranty claims unrelated to the seven-way cord, subject to limited door-opening exceptions for the consent-decree evidence.
4. The court denied exclusion of Nelson's experts' field investigations because Forest River did not possess, custody, or control the inspected products and Nelson had no duty on the facts presented to notify Forest River of the investigations. The court also declined to exclude the investigations for alleged destructive testing.
5. Evidence of Forest River's financial standing, size, operations, or ability to pay damages was excluded during the liability phase, except for voir dire, but may be admitted during a punitive-damages phase if the jury first determines that punitive damages are warranted.
6. Forest River may not dispute the common design of its towable fifth-wheel RVs within the certified Montana class, unless Nelson opens the door to that evidence. Evidence concerning other towable vehicles outside the certified class was not anticipated at trial.
7. The court denied exclusion of the towing-experiment photographs, arguments concerning loom-protection violations, the class damages model, loss-of-use damages, testimony about product quality and alleged defects, questions concerning expert representations to dealerships, expert rebuttal testimony concerning applicable industry standards, and evidence that the wiring system rarely causes fires or presents a low fire risk. The court reserved ruling on several matters until trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rojas was qualified and sufficiently reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to testify regarding class-wide damages and repair costs.
2. Whether evidence of Forest River's recalls and other subsequent remedial measures was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.
3. Whether evidence concerning Forest River's consent decree, unrelated warranty claims, financial condition, and use of fire symbols should be excluded under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
4. Whether Nelson's experts' field investigations and towing-experiment photographs should be excluded because of discovery, destructive-testing, or prejudice concerns.
5. Whether certain expert testimony, hearsay relied upon by experts, allegations concerning an expert's prior fraud litigation, and arguments concerning wiring standards or fire risk should be excluded before trial.
6. Whether Forest River could dispute the common design of towable fifth-wheel RVs within the certified Montana class.

Disposition

other