Leah McKeever is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ Phoenix office. Her practice focuses on defense of general liability and personal injury matters on behalf of individuals and businesses.
Prior to joining Tyson & Mendes, Ms. McKeever represented clients in personal injury cases including general liability, auto and premises liability, and wrongful death, as well as property damage and defamation cases. She has successfully resolved hundreds of personal injury matters for her clients. Her experience also includes contributing to the drafting and filing of patent and trademark applications on behalf of clients through the Intellectual Property Clinic during law school.
Ms. McKeever achieved her J.D. from The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law in 2017, where she was a member of the Student Bar Association, served on the Arizona Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, and participated in the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Law School Certification Programs for patents and trademarks, receiving an Intellectually Property Certification. She obtained her B.S. in Political Science from The University of Arizona in 2013. Ms. McKeever is licensed to practice law in Arizona.
In her free time, she enjoys spending time with her husband, family and friends. She also enjoys traveling, running, reading, and equestrianism.
In AIMS Insurance v. National Fire, et al, the Arizona Court of Appeals held a Forgery Endorsement did not provide coverage for a “spoofing” attack based upon the interpretation of the endorsement.
In Dabush, et al. v. Seacret Direct, LLC, et al., the Arizona Supreme Court recently held tenants who helped conduct repairs owed no duty to a third party injured on the premises.
In Arizona, a plaintiff can present the entire billed amount of past economic damages (such as past medical damages), to the jury. Plaintiffs rely on Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., which applies the collateral source rule to medical expenses. Lopez provides, “plaintiffs are entitled to claim and recover the full amount of reasonable medical expenses charged, based on the reasonable value of medical services rendered…
In Clayton v. Kenworthy, the Arizona Court of Appeals held the superior court abused its discretion by completely prohibiting the recording of a Rule 35(c)(2)(A), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, independent neuropsychological examination.
A horse’s nature is different from other animals. Despite their size, and surprising to many, horses are prey animals. The natural temperament of a horse is similar to a rabbit, which can be very unpredictable. For this reason, equine activities are therefore inherently dangerous. Nevertheless, equine owners or agent(s) of the owner (“equine owner(s)”) and owner(s), agent(s), or lessor of any riding stable, rodeo ground, training or boarding stable or other private property (“equine facility owner(s)”) may still be held liable of the injury or death of another.
Humphrey, et al. v. Arizona[i]
On May 14, 2008, Pamela Humphrey and her sister-in-law, Ann Quinn were traveling on Interstate 10 between Tucson and Phoenix in Arizona when Pamela lost control of the vehicle, crossed the median, and collided with a semi-truck traveling the other direction. Both women did not survive. The accident triggered a wrongful death action for their statutory beneficiaries, including their husbands, James Humphrey (“Humphrey”) and Lynn Quinn (“Quinn”).
Arizona courts have remained open to serve the public, adjusting in-court practices and operations to continue moving cases forward despite the restrictions imposed by COVID-19. Beginning on June 1, 2020, Arizona courts will begin to transition to in-person proceedings to the extent they can be safely accomplished, and on June 15, 2020, jury trials may resume, subject to the…
On March 9, 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court settled a reoccurring issue of concern in personal injury matters. In Ansley v. Banner Health Network, the Supreme Court held that 1) plaintiffs had a private right of action to challenge the lien statutes; and 2) the lien statutes are unconstitutional as applied.
Center For Auto Services v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company: Arizona Appeals Court Determines That the Same Factors Apply to Unseal a Document as Are Required to Seal It