Mark Bolin is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ Los Angeles office. His practice focuses primarily on general liability matters, including personal injury and automobile liability.
Mr. Bolin has defended a variety of corporate entities and individuals in lawsuits including commercial transportation, products liability, negligence, and unfair competition claims. He has obtained favorable settlements and voluntary dismissals in numerous motor vehicle accident cases with disputed liability.
Mr. Bolin earned his J.D. from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, where he served as the Executive Editor for the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. After law school Mr. Bolin clerked for Magistrate Judges Allison Claire and Gregory G. Hollows in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. He is admitted to practice in all California state courts and the Central District of California. Mr. Bolin is also a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and serves as co-president of the Los Angeles Lawyers’ Chapter of the American Constitution Society.
Outside of work, Mr. Bolin enjoys trying new restaurants with friends, practicing yoga, and reading graphic novels.
Recent PostsArguing the Relevance of the BAC of a Plaintiff Who Admits Intoxication
Gerlach v. The Cove Apartments, LLC, et al., Wa. Sup. Ct., No. 77179-5-1 (pub. Mar. 18, 2019)
The Washington Supreme Court recently reversed a judgment in favor of a plaintiff who had succeeded in excluding evidence her blood alcohol content (BAC) was .238 when she fell off the balcony of her friend’s apartment. The trial court had held the evidence was more prejudicial than probative despite the apartment complex’s reliance on a voluntary intoxication affirmative defense because plaintiff admitted being intoxicated on the night in question. However, the Washington Supreme Court held the trial court erred because while plaintiff’s BAC was not relevant to show she was intoxicated, it was relevant to show the effect her intoxication had on her actions.A Townhall on the Future of AV in California
The future of autonomous vehicles in California is a development with stakeholders eager to make their mark. There are parties in every corner with no shortage of ideas about where the industry is headed, and the State is looking to ensure it is prepared for what comes next.The Preservation of Attorney Client Privilege in State Farm v. Griggs
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Griggs (Colo. 2018) 419 P.3d 572
On June 4, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed a district court decision that held State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”) had waived attorney client-privilege by submitting an affidavit from its former attorney regarding their communications. The Supreme Court determined the district court erred in deciding State Farm had put its communications at issue by filing the affidavit in support of its opposition to a motion for sanctions filed by one of the defendants and respondent. The Court held State Farm’s opposition was using the affidavit to explain representations of fact. State Farm did not make an argument that relied upon legal advice provided by former counsel. On that basis, the Court held State Farm it did not put those communications at issue.The Importance of Contractual Signifiers in Anti-Stacking Provisions Under A.R.S. § 20-259.01
In Hanfelder v. GEICO Indem. Co., 1 CA-CV 17-0362, 2018 WL 2315949, at *1 (App. May 22, 2018), the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment order in favor of GEICO Indemnity Company (“GEICO Indemnity”) in a case involving the interpretation of the insurer’s underinsured motorist coverage amendment. Based on that amendment’s use of the word “us,” the court held GEICO Indemnity’s Policy did not effectively limit its UIM coverage was limited to one policy.Impeachment and How it Interacts with the Collateral Source Rule in Finner v. Hurless
Finner v. Hurless (Nev. App., Apr. 25, 2018, No. 70656) 2018 WL 2059533, at *1
The Court of Appeals of Nevada recently upheld a defense verdict in a motor vehicle accident case involving testimony implicating impeachment evidence and its interaction with the collateral source rule. The court held the expert’s testimony opened the door to cross-examination concerning a certain past settlement agreement he had with the government prohibiting him from taking the plaintiff’s type of insurance. In dicta, the court determined the admission of that evidence did not violate the collateral source rule, despite the fact that it revealed the identity of his insurance provider because the plaintiff never actually received a payment from his insurance.