Emily Berman is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. Her practice primarily focuses on general liability and commercial and insurance litigation, including personal injury defense. Ms. Berman has experience representing individuals, businesses, and insurance companies in litigation across California state courts.
Prior to joining Tyson & Mendes, Ms. Berman was an associate at an insurance defense firm in Los Angeles and a business litigation firm in San Diego. She has successfully resolved numerous cases involving high value complex accidents, personal injury, business, and contractual disputes.
Ms. Berman earned her B.A. in Psychology, cum laude, from the University of Kansas in 2010. She went on to earn her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law in 2013, where she was a member of the Student Bar Association and the Moot Court Executive Board, coordinating and competing in multiple intra-school competitions. She is licensed to practice law in California and is a member of the San Diego County Bar Association and San Diego Defense Lawyers. She has also been a member of the Louis M. Welsh Inn of Court and the Lawyer’s Club of San Diego.
In her free time, Ms. Berman volunteers as a Court-Appointed Special Advocate with Voices for Children. She also enjoys traveling, running, and reading.
Kim v. United States (9th Cir. 2019) 940 F.3d 484
Romero v. Fullerton Surgical Center LP (Cal.Ct.App., Oct. 15, 2019, No. 6056433) 2019 WL 5156723
Anaya v. General Equipment & Supplies, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2019, No. B291274) 2019 WL 4945729
Travelers Indemnity Co. et al v. Northrop Grumman Corp et al.
Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Illinois National Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania et al.
In Re: World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Stephouse Recovery Inc., et al.
Insurer Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. (PIIC) recently won summary judgment against an addiction treatment company (Stephouse Recovery) to recover payment it made toward that company’s settlement of a suit over the death of one of its residents who overdosed. The underlying suit was filed by the father of a man who died while…
Chapman et al. v. ACE American Insurance Company
In this recent decision from the 11th Circuit, the Court ruled that ACE American Insurance Co. had no duty to defend or indemnify a man who pretended to be a licensed mental health counselor in a wrongful death suit. The insurance policy covers only legitimate professional services.
Duff v. Lee
Gibson v. Theut
Pitts v. Indus. Comm’n of Arizona
Westport Insurance Corp. v. California Casualty Management Co.
California’s Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that an excess insurer for a California school district had to cover $2.6 million of the total $15.8 million settlement paid by the primary insurer to resolve a case involving three former students’ claims of sexual abuse, finding that the lower court had properly apportioned the settlement between the two insurance carriers.
On October 3, 2018, the Tyson & Mendes Women’s Initiative partnered with the San Diego Lawyer’s Club (SDLC) to host a wonderful and thought-provoking event, inviting discussion and action to promote women in the legal industry. The event was designed to build on “The Ask, Part I,” hosted earlier in the year by the SDLC. The Ask, Part II was held at the La Jolla Country Club with over 100 professionals in attendance. The evening…
Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
In this recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, the Court issued an opinion interpreting and applying C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115/1116, the statutes that provide a private right of action against an insurer for unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits. The Court held claims under the statute are not subject to the one-year statute of limitations applicable to penalties and insureds are entitled to recover two times the covered insurance benefit in addition to the covered benefit, for a total of three times the covered benefit. In order to reach this conclusion, the Court looked at the language of the accrual statute associated with Colorado’s statutory scheme for statutes of limitation. The accrual statute states that a cause of action for penalties accrues when the determination of overpayment or delinquency is no longer subject to appeal. The Court reasoned that an action for unreasonable delay/denial never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency. Thus, the Court reasoned, if a cause of action for unreasonable delay/denial is a penalty subject to the one-year statute of limitations, it would never accrue and the clock to bring the claim would never start ticking. The Court concluded the “penalty” actions referred to in the statute of limitations cannot include unreasonable delay/denial actions. Accordingly, the Court held claims under C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115/1116 are not governed by the one-year statute of limitations in C.R.S. § 13-80-103(1)(d).
Products Liability-Record $70 Million Punitive Damage Award Pending Appeal
Kuhlmann et al. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Appellate Case No. A147945, Court of Appeal, First District
A record high $70 million punitive damages verdict against Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit over a defective surgery stapler is up on appeal. Johnson & Johnson contends the evidence does not support the jury’s finding the stapler manufacturer acted with malice. If the verdict is allowed to stand, it will be the highest punitive award affirmed by a California court. Johnson & Johnson’s attorneys claim the amount is excessive, as it far exceeds what courts have approved for cases involving far more reprehensible alleged misconduct, such as harm caused by asbestos or the tobacco industry.
Coalition Against Distracted Driving et al. v. Apple Inc. et al.
In this appeal recently brought before the Second Appellate District (downtown Los Angeles), appellant urged the Court to revive a suit in he and a coalition brought against Apple, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. In that suit, it was alleged these tech giants should be required to warn consumers about the dangers of using smartphones while driving. Plaintiffs argued the four tech companies must apply warning labels regarding the dangers of distracted driving to their products. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling the coalition had no standing to sue.