Missouri Supreme Court affirms exclusion of expert testimony under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 490.065 (the state law analogue to Federal Rule of Evidence 702), emphasizing failure to show reliability

On February 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued its opinion in Hanshaw v. Crown Equipment Corp. affirming the exclusion of the plaintiff’s design-defect expert, and a grant of summary judgment for the manufacturer. In that product liability case arising from a forklift injury, the Court held the proponent failed to demonstrate the expert’s opinions were the product of reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the facts as required by section 490.065—the Missouri analogue to Federal Rule of Evidence 702—thereby dooming the claims that depended on that testimony.

The expert asserted his opinions were supported by his observations and analyses of the forklift; inspection of the accident location; creation of models of the machine and site; review of video footage; “safety engineering analyses” applying design principles to foreseeable failure modes; and review of accident data from Crown Equipment and OSHA.

The Court held the expert’s opinions were inadmissible because the record did not disclose the expert’s methodology, theory, or technique—only his qualifications and a list of materials reviewed—leaving the court unable to evaluate reliability under section 490.065(c)-(d) and Daubert; this created “too great an analytical gap” between the data and the conclusions, amounting to impermissible ipse dixit (i.e., an opinion based on the witness’s own authority, without other supporting evidence or proof.)

Key takeaways

• Missouri applies the familiar Rule 702/Daubert framework. Section 490.065 requires not just a qualified expert and sufficient facts/data, but also that the opinion be the product of reliable principles and methods, reliably applied. Missouri’s statute mirrors Federal Rule 702, and Daubert’s reliability analysis is persuasive authority in Missouri courts.
• The Court focused on whether the expert’s methodology was reliable and properly applied. Daubert’s non-exhaustive factors—testing, peer review/publication, error rate/standards, and general acceptance—guide the assessment. If the proponent does not present the methodology, the circuit court could not evaluate reliability, and exclusion was within its discretion.
• Ipse dixit opinions are inadmissible. The Court reiterated that nothing in Daubert or the rules requires a court to admit opinion evidence connected to data only by the expert’s say‑so.
• Methodology must be presented. Missouri Courts will not infer reliability from credentials, experience, or a list of materials reviewed.
• Experts should provide the actual studies, reports, and test results, not just references to them—so the court can evaluate reliability at the Daubert/section 490.065 stage. In this case, the absence of the cited peer‑reviewed papers and testing details was decisive.
• When discovery is closed, replacing an excluded expert or curing foundational deficiencies may be impossible; a reliability gap can therefore be outcome‑determinative at summary judgment.

Bottom line: Missouri’s high court reaffirmed that expert admissibility demands more than qualifications and data review. Parties must show a reliable methodology and its reliable application to the case. Without that showing, courts may exclude the testimony—and if the claim depends on it, summary judgment will follow.