David Ramirez is an AV rated Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. His practice focuses primarily on general liability, commercial and residential construction, and insurance litigation. Mr. Ramirez’s extensive litigation experience includes representing individuals and businesses across all California state and federal district courts.
Mr. Ramirez has successfully resolved a variety of cases involving complex business, construction defects, insurance coverage, and class action disputes. Recently, Mr. Ramirez successfully completed a three-month long, multi-million-dollar trial which resulted in a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of his client. Mr. Ramirez also successfully settled a number of cases on behalf of developer/builder entities as well as subcontractors, material providers and suppliers.
Mr. Ramirez earned his J.D. in 1988 from University of San Diego School of Law. He is licensed to practice law in California and is a member of the San Diego Defense Lawyers. He was named one of the “Top Lawyers in San Diego” for Complex Litigation by San Diego Magazine from 2013 to 2017; “Top Lawyers in Southern California” for Litigation by Los Angeles Times for 2013, 2014 and 2015; and “Top Lawyers in California” for Litigation by American Lawyers Media for 2013 and 2014.
In his free time, Mr. Ramirez enjoys spending time with his family. He is also an avid oenophile, having served at wine judging and other events.
In the recent case of Guastello v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2021), the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District held triable issues of material fact exist which preclude summary judgment for an insurer seeking to disclaim coverage on the basis the “occurrence” pre-dated the policy period where a dispute exists as to the timing of the subject “occurrence.”
In the recent matter of Ko v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., (2020 WL 7639590; December 23, 2020) the California Court of Appeal for the Second District determined the present requirement for a claim of negligent infliction of emotion distress brought on behalf of a bystander, was satisfied where plaintiff was present virtually with the aid of technology.
In the recent case of Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation (2020) 52 Cal.App. 5th 571, the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim, explaining an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an indemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. In other words, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights as the insured. . . [h]ere . . . [the insurer] was seeking to stand…
In the recent case of Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 192, The Second District Court of Appeal revisited the issue of the “Privette Doctrine” and the exceptions to it. Ever vigilant as to the Courts continued expansion of the “exceptions” to the Privette Doctrine, it was refreshing to see the Court instead merely review the facts of the case in context of the prior holdings, which created those exceptions to Privette. If anything, the Court appeared to clarify the issues of active versus passive negligence in application to the Privette exception.
In the recent matter of Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App. 5th 216, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer. Upon review, the Court of Appeal found all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and thus, the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. The key policy informing the holding is to dis-incentivize contractors from avoiding their contractual indemnity obligations.
In the recent case entitled Fadeeff v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 94, the California Court of Appeals, First District held that triable issues of fact as well as the trial court’s failure to address a request for a continuance precluded summary judgment for an insurer under the “genuine dispute doctrine.”
In the recent matter of 501 East 51st Street etc. v. Kookmin Best Ins. Co., Ltd. (2020, 47 Cal.App.5th 924), the California Court of Appeals, Second District, affirmed summary adjudication and dismissal of a bad faith claim based on the “genuine dispute doctrine.”
In the recent case of Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal.App.5th 834, the California Court of Appeal held that a binding arbitration clause in an insurance policy extends to a third party, such as an additional insured.
In the recent case entitled Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, Inc., (2019 WL 7790891) the Third Appellate District Court of Appeal held an additional insured was bound by an arbitration clause in the general liability insurance policy concerning a coverage dispute between the additional insured and the insurance carrier.
In the recent case of City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. 5th 1091(2019), the California Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The Court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial…