KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. On January 23, 2021, Timothy Davis inadvertently shot himself in the leg with his Sig Sauer P320 X-Carry pistol (“P320”) while he was getting out of his truck. Davis claims that the pistol was fully holstered at the time of the shooting and that he did not pull the trigger. According to Davis, the P320 is defectively designed because it is unreasonably likely to fire inadvertently, reasonable alternative designs exist that could make the P320 safer for consumers, and those alternative designs would have prevented his injury. Accordingly, he brought a products-liability action under Kentucky law, sounding in strict liability and negligence, against Sig Sauer, the manufacturer of the P320. Following discovery, the district court granted Sig Sauer’s motions to exclude Davis’s expert witnesses—firearms expert, James Tertin, and human factors expert, Dr. William J. Vigilante, Jr.—and Sig Sauer’s motion for summary judgment. The district court found that neither expert could opine on whether any alleged defect in the P320 caused Davis’s injury because neither expert investigated the exact factual circumstances of the shooting incident. Without expert testimony, the district court held that Davis could not pursue a products-liability action under Kentucky law. Davis has appealed this judgment. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART. Although the district court correctly excluded Davis’s experts from testifying about what exactly caused Davis’s P320 to fire inadvertently, the experts’ opinions were otherwise admissible to prove other elements of Davis’s claims—specifically that the P320 is defectively designed and that reasonable alternative designs exist. Because we reverse the district court’s decision to exclude completely the expert witnesses, we also hold that Davis has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the P320 was defectively designed and caused his injury. We therefore VACATE the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.