A San Diego native, Pat Mendes is a Founding Partner of Tyson & Mendes and works from the firm’s San Diego headquarters.
Over the course of his career, Mr. Mendes has developed a formidable track record in defending insurance companies and businesses, taking on high profile, high stakes litigation involving insurers, design professionals, contractors, homeowners associations, and real property disputes. His specific practice areas include construction litigation, personal injury, insurance coverage and professional liability.
An active member of the legal community, he is affiliated with a number of professional organizations, including the San Diego County Bar Association, the Council on Litigation Management (CLM), the San Diego Defense Lawyers and California Minority Counsel Program (CMCP). He presents regularly to professional groups on insurance and casualty law as well as other current legal issues.
Previously a partner with Gordon & Rees – where he served as director of the construction and insurance groups – Mr. Mendes joined forces with Bob Tyson in 2002 to form Tyson & Mendes. In 1992, he graduated cum laude from the University of California, San Diego with a bachelor’s degree in History, and went on to earn his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1995. He is licensed to practice law in California.
Mr. Mendes enjoys running, playing golf and spending time with his wife, Lori, and three children, Matthew, Grace, and Kayla.
Life is messy. When things get uncomfortable or awkward you sometimes just need to embrace the awkward before you can reach a meaningful resolution.
The Recorder by Law.com – August 27, 2018
Over the years, my partner Bob Tyson and I have discovered several key management techniques that have helped us build a successful, growth-sustaining law firm in the modern, millennial-driven age.
Law360 – October 25, 2017
Here, Patrick Mendes of Tyson & Mendes LLP recalls how, as a new and inexperienced lawyer, he absorbed ideas and advice from partners and fellow associates alike, and how many of the lessons he learned from his colleagues back then have proven to be of enduring value.
In the recent case, Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Arch Specialty Insurance (April 11, 2016, 2016 WL 1436362) the Court of Appeal of California for the Third Appellate District
In Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools, (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 468, a California Court of Appeal held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract agreement.
In the indemnity hierarchy, an owner typically requires its general contractor to indemnify the owner from and against “any and all claims arising out of, related to, arising out of, etc.” the general contractor’s scope of work. Similarly, the general contractor will require indemnification from its subcontractors. This dynamic continues with each party pointing to the next down a proverbial “indemnity ladder.” In this typical scenario, it is good to be the “owner,” perched high atop the indemnity hierarchy.
In St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. ACE American Insurance, the court’s interpretation of “ongoing operations” included a temporal element. However, this temporal element places emphasis on when the damage occurred, as opposed to when the damage was discovered.
Medicare and Medi-Cal each have unique requirements for claims involving their beneficiaries. Here we address commonly asked questions, including the difference between the two, the impact the programs have on the insurer, and how to handle Medicare and Medi-Cal liens in reaching a settlement.
A recent case addresses a split of decisions in California as to whether incorporation of a defective product into a construction project may itself constitute “property damage” under a CGL policy.
Product liability cases can involve complex mechanisms of injury, and multiple design and manufacturing defendants. Recently, the Court of Appeal addressed a matter where defendants claimed a products liability case should have been tried under a risk/benefit test instead of a consumer expectations test.
On July 25, 2014, the Court of Appeal, Second District, addressed whether Yelp’s statements related to its “filtering software” were protected by the Anti-SLAPP against claims set forth under Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.