Kris D. Klingensmith is an Associate at Tyson & Mendes’ Las Vegas office. Mr. Klingensmith has extensive litigation experience representing individuals and businesses in Nevada state and federal courts. He practices primarily in personal injury litigation with experience in trucking accidents, premises liability, product liability and wrongful death.
Mr. Klingensmith has defended cases from beginning to end, preparing and assisting clients to present their side of the story. He has obtained favorable rulings and summary judgments for clients in high value cases, including obtaining a summary judgment for his client in a wrongful death action. In a separate wrongful death action, Mr. Klingensmith conducted significant discovery and investigations that led to a favorable resolution for his client.
Mr. Klingensmith has practiced law in Nevada since 2015. He obtained his J.D. from Regent University School of Law in 2015. While in law school, he served as the Senior Editor of the Regent Journal of International Law and co-founded the Regent University Men’s Soccer Club, for which he served as a co-captain. He obtained his B.S. in international relations from Brigham Young University with a minor in Chinese in 2010. Mr. Klingensmith is a member of the Nevada State Bar and is licensed to practice in the Federal District Courts of Nevada.
Mr. Klingensmith grew up moving often as an “Army brat” and spent time in several states and Germany, but he claims Texas as home. He enjoys playing and watching soccer, cooking, and traveling with his family during his free time.
In 2018, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion in Century Surety Company v. Andrew with important potential implications regarding an insurance carrier’s liability and duty to defend. Generally, an insurance policy contains the detailed scope of the insurer’s contractual duty to defend the insured, outlining both when the duty and certain exclusions apply. At issue in the Century Surety case is whether the liability of an insurer that has breached its duty to defend, without acting in bad faith, is capped at policy limits plus costs incurred, or whether the insurer is liable for all losses consequential to the breach of the duty to defend.
The Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in March 2019 to change the scope of discovery and to require a proportionality test. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court outlined the analysis the district courts must use to determine (1) whether the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case based on a list of factors in the new language and (2) whether good cause had been shown such that a protective order should issue. Venetian Casino Resort, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Nev. 2020).
Biomechanical experts have been the subject of many motions in limine and appeals throughout recent years. The primary issue has been whether a biomechanical expert can provide opinions at trial regarding the forces of impact and alleged injuries resulting from that impact. In 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court laid the groundwork and set a high bar for a party to successfully…
All too often, a perfectly defensible claim or case contains significant flaws due to evidence spoliation issues. However, recent changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (“NRCP”) have changed and softened some of the sanctions surrounding spoliation of electronically stored information.