Mia Kelly is Senior Counsel at Tyson & Mendes. Ms. Kelly’s practice focuses on premises liability, automobile liability and personal injury matters. As a former prosecutor, Ms. Kelly brings a wealth of trial and litigation experience to the Tyson & Mendes team.
Ms. Kelly has obtained numerous favorable verdicts for her clients at trial, including a defense verdict as part of a trial team in a large government contract case. Ms. Kelly also achieved a defense verdict with her trial team in a premises liability case. In addition, Ms. Kelly settled a large employment action with a six-figure demand for a nuisance amount after her thorough investigation revealed Plaintiff’s emotional distress claims were unrelated to the incident.
Ms. Kelly earned her J.D. from Syracuse College of Law in 2001 where she was a member of the Moot Court Honor Society and an editor of the Law & Technology Journal. She graduated from University of California at San Diego in 1998, where she earned her B.A. in Political Science. Ms. Kelly is an active member of both the California State Bar and New York State Bar.
In her free time, Ms. Kelly spends time with her husband and two children. She also enjoys running, yoga and skiing.
The California Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court ruling denying an insurer’s leave to amend its complaint after a motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in favor of the defense. In Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Engel Insulation, Inc. (2018) WL6259032, Travelers, the contractor’s insurer, sought leave to amend its complaint against subcontractor Engel Insulation for defense fees and costs. The trial court denied Traveler’s request to amend. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling and held an insurer may not “may not pursue a subrogation recovery if the insured is itself barred from filing suit.” (See Low v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co.(2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1363.)
A June 6, 2018 California Appeals Court decision in Von Becelaere Ventures, LLC v. James Zenovic (24 Cal.App.5th 243) held a contractor waives the right to arbitrate a “construction dispute under the terms of the contract by failing to request a stay of a mechanic’s lien pending the outcome of arbitration.” In that case, Von Beccelaere Ventures, LLC (“VBV”) entered into a contract with James Zenovic Construction…
How far back in time can a terminated employee’s unpaid wage claim reach under the Colorado Wage Claim Act? This was the sua sponte question before the Colorado Supreme Court in Hernandez v. Ray Domenico Farms, Inc. (2018WL1146468 decided March 5, 2018).
The Supreme Court held that under Colorado Wage Claim Act section 8-4-109, an employee may seek any wage or compensation which was unpaid at the time of termination, but the claim is subject to the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations begins to run when the wages or compensation first become due and payable and therefore limits a terminated employee to a claim of two years (three for willful violations) immediately preceding the termination.
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Brian Johnson (2017) 396 P. 2d 651, the Colorado Supreme Court held a named insured has the authority to reject or waive UM/UIM coverage. Similarly, the Court held a named insured may waive or reject the selection of lower limits on behalf of another named insured under the same policy.