Kyle Jones is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ Seattle office. Mr. Jones defends individuals and businesses in lawsuits involving professional, general, and auto liability. Prior to joining Tyson & Mendes, Mr. Jones primarily represented investment advisors, registered representatives, accountants, ERISA fiduciaries, attorneys, and insurance agents and brokers in professional liability claims in state and federal court and FINRA arbitration. He is well versed in claims involving annuities, alternative investments, and options as well as lawsuits arising out of failed IRC section 419 welfare benefit plans. Mr. Jones’ current practice also involves premises liability claims and real estate disputes.
Mr. Jones has experience defending a variety of high stakes lawsuits. In 2014, he was the sole supporting attorney during a three-week FINRA arbitration involving over $5 million in realized damages wherein an outright defense verdict was secured for his client. Mr. Jones has been integral in developing litigation strategy in a variety of complex business lawsuits, including litigation arising out of REAL VEBA plan and trust and TCPA class actions. He also has significant experience drafting, arguing, and winning pleadings challenges, shutting the door on litigation before it begins.
Mr. Jones is admitted to practice law in Washington and California. He is a current member of the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers. He received his undergraduate degree from the Honors College at the University of Washington, where he studied English. He received his J.D. with a business specialization from the UCLA School of Law.
In his spare time, Kyle can be found training for or participating in triathlons along with his wife, Katie, watching the Washington Huskies and Seattle Seahawks play football, or skiing.
Recent PostsDivision 1 Decision Warns Insurers Not to Exhaust Policy Limits and Terminate Coverage While Potential Claims Remain
The Division 1 Court of Appeals recently issued an unpublished opinion that may give pause to insurance carriers who hope to settle claims for policy limits while other claims remain unresolved. In Joginder Singh dba Singh AP Transport v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Docket No. 76479-9-I, 2018 WL 3844372, the court examined an insurance carrier’s decision in a difficult situation arising from an unfortunate set of facts.Division 1 Issues its First Published Opinion on RCW 46.64.040 in Nearly Three Years, Clarifying What it Means to be “Found” in State for Purposes of Service via Secretary of State
On May 29, 2018, Division 1 of the Court of Appeals of Washington issued its first published decision on RCW 46.64.040 in nearly three years in Cito v. Rios, 418 P.3d 811. RCW 46.64.040 allows plaintiffs to serve defendants who cannot be “found” by adhering to alternate procedures, which include filing declarations of due diligence and compliance with the court, mailing or delivering them with the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State and defendant’s last known address, and attempting personal service at the last known address.PIP Application Deemed Confidential Work Product by Washington’s Court of Appeals Division III
On April 3, 2018, Chief Judge Lawrence-Berrey delivered the opinion for the Court of Appeals Division Division III in Monica Diaz Barriga Figueroa as guardian of Brayan Martinez v. Consuelo Prieto Mariscal, 414 P.3d 590. The case involved personal injury to a minor child in late 2013. Defendant was driving her minivan with her daughter in the passenger seat beside her. Vehicles were parked on the right side of the road.. As she passed one of those vehicles, she heard a noise on the passenger side of her van and felt it move. She stopped and exited the vehicle to find minor Brayan Martinez lying next to the van with his bicycle, his leg having been run over by the minivan’s tire.A Case Study on Conflicts of Interest- Attorneys Disqualified Based Upon Former Client Representation
Division 1 of the Washington Court of Appeals recently decided a case affecting insurance defense attorneys in their representation of appointed clients. In the matter of In re: Estate of Taylor Griffith, the court considered the interplay between notices of appearance and conflicts of interest under Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.9.Division 1 Affirms Importance of Objective Measures of Injury under Industrial Insurance Act in Washington
Division 1 recently considered a case involving an application to reopen a Department of Labor and Industries claim in Hendrickson v. Department of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington (“L & I”). Procedurally, Plaintiff filed an application to reopen her claim one year after L & I had closed it. L & I dismissed the application to reopen, and the superior court upheld the dismissal. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision of the superior court.Washington Court of Appeals Division III Clarifies Work Product Doctrine’s Applicability to Expert Witnesses
On December 14, 2017, Court of Appeals Division III addressed Washington State’s application of the work product doctrine to communications with expert witnesses in In re Estate of Dempsey. In Dempsey, Ellen Smith sued a doctor and a clinic in connection with Michael Dempsey’s death. Discovery disputes were contentious, so the court appointed a special discovery master to rule on them.Chan Healthcare Group v. Liberty Mutual: How Overreaching Plaintiff Attorneys in Illinois Affected PIP Payments in Washington for Individual Gain of $1.2 Million
On June 25, 2014, Robert Schmieder and Bradley Lakin of SL Chapman in St. Louis, MO, filed a class action against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in Illinois Circuit Court in Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Complaint attacked Liberty Mutual’s use of “FAIR Health” to analyze and discount medical bills.Use it or Lose it: Division One Holds All Counterclaims Arising from a Car Accident are Compulsory
In 2013, Chukri and Stalfort were involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein each alleged the other was at fault. In 2015, Stalfort filed a personal injury lawsuit against Churkri. Chukri’s insurance company hired defense counsel, who sent a letter explaining the limited basis of the engagement. The letter stated the attorney would defend Chukri in the instant lawsuit, but he could not represent Churkri in his claims for damages against other parties in the lawsuit. However, if Chukri chose to hire his own attorney, the letter explained his attorney would cooperate with his personal counsel. The letter included a copy of a “Statement of Insured Client’s Rights,” emphasizing the importance of promptly retaining separate counsel to file any counterclaims.Supreme Court Holds Department of Labor and Industries is Exempt from Statutes of Limitation, Even When Seeking Damages for Benefit of an Individual
In 2009, Basilio Cornelio Carrera was working for Bent Hartley Farms as a seasonal laborer sorting and packing onions. He received safety training from a third party contractor known as Sunheaven. Later in 2009, Carerra’s job changed from sorting and packing onions to sweeping the farm warehouse. He received no additional safety training when he changed jobs.Division III Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of PIP Coverage in Case of Injury Occurring in Motor Vehicle not being Operated as a Motor Vehicle
On August 1, 2017, Division III of the Court of Appeals granted a Motion for Publication its June 6, 2017 opinion in Ramm v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington. In Ramm, Kelly Ramm was driving his car with his son on Trent Avenue in Spokane when he started to feel nauseous. Mr. Ramm pulled his vehicle onto a side street and then over to the side of the road. He placed the vehicle in park but left the keys in the ignition. He opened the driver’s door, unbuckled his seatbelt, and leaned out to vomit. As he leaned out, he passed out, and struck his head on the pavement, suffering significant injuries. His head was bleeding profusely, but his legs and feet remained in the vehicle by the pedals. Mr. Ramm’s son provided first aid and drove his father to the emergency room. The medical bills arising from the incident totaled a sum greater than Mr. Ramm’s $10,000 PIP benefits.