Raymond “Ken” Wilson Jr. is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. His practice focuses on professional malpractice defense, general liability defense, corporate/contract, and appellate law. Mr. Wilson has extensive litigation experience representing physicians, attorneys, general contractors, developers, businesses, and individuals in California and Nebraska state and federal district courts.
Mr. Wilson has favorably resolved a variety of matters for his clients through settlement, dispositive motion, or trial. He obtained a defense verdict for an OB/GYN accused of medical malpractice, obtained a defense verdict for an insurance broker in an errors and omissions case, and obtained favorable settlements for several general contractor clients throughout Southern California. Mr. Wilson also obtained a favorable settlement of less than $25,000 for a car accident with claims of damages in excess of $1.5 million. Mr. Wilson has written several winning briefs to the California Court of Appeals in Orange and Los Angeles Counties as well as two appellate briefs to the California Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. Wilson wrote three winning briefs to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
Mr. Wilson earned his J.D. in 2012 from Creighton University School of Law, where he was on the National Trial Team and was runner up in the ABA’s National Criminal Trial Advocacy Competition. Mr. Wilson earned his B.A. in political science in 2007 from the University of San Diego. Mr. Wilson is licensed to practice law in California and Nebraska and is a member of the San Diego Defense Lawyers, San Diego County, Omaha, and Nebraska Bar Associations.
Mr. Wilson is an avid surfer and sailor who also enjoys playing and watching hockey. He spends most of his free time with his wife – an internationally ranked champion sailor – and son at home or on the water. Mr. Wilson also enjoys playing golf and riding his road bicycle and is currently serving as a Director for the Coronado Yacht Club.
Recent PostsNew California Ruling Highlights the Dangers of Failing to Accept Reasonable Policy Limits Demands
In Potter v. Alliance United Insurance Company (AUIC), the California Court of Appeal looked at a case involving a California legal minimum auto insurance policy, $15,000. Plaintiff, Christopher Potter was driving and was struck by Jesus Tovar’s car. Tovar was insured by AUIC with a maximum policy limit of $15,000. Potter offered to settle the claims against Tovar for the policy limit, but AUIC failed to respond to the offer.Insurers Beware: California Legislature Seeks to Expand Statute of Limitations for Childhood Sexual Assault… Again
The California Legislature is considering a bill (AB 218) which would modify California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1. Currently, section 340.1 sets the statute of limitation for civil actions involving childhood sexual assault at the date the plaintiff turns 26 years old or three years after the plaintiff discovers (or should reasonably discover) the connection between the abuse and psychological injury, whichever occurs later.California Court of Appeal Rules Attorney’s Fees Not Proper Following Acceptance of a 998 Offer to Compromise on an Unruh Act Claim
In Linton v. County of Contra Costa (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 628, plaintiff sued for injuries she sustained when she fell from her wheelchair while riding in a county para-transit van. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleged violations of the Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code § 54 et seq.) and the Unruh Act. (California Civil Code § 51 et seq.) Both causes of action allow for attorney’s fees if liability is proven.California Court of Appeal Highlights Importance of Defense Challenges to Non-Retained Experts in Medical Negligence Cases
When reviewing a plaintiff’s list of retained and non-retained experts expected testimony in a medical negligence case, it is very important to ensure the testimony will not be duplicative and the expert has the proper basis to give the expected opinion.You Rear-Ended Someone on the Highway? Legally it is Your Fault, Right? “Not Always” Says California Court of Appeal
The scene: You are driving down the highway in the slow lane, and two cars merge onto the highway in front of you. The car closest to you is tailgating the one ahead of it when the front car slams on its brakes for no discernable reason and then drives away. The car directly ahead of you hits its brakes, too, and you cannot stop in time before hitting it.Product Liability and Insurance Coverage Concerns for the Colorado Marijuana Industry
The legalization of marijuana for recreational use over the past several years in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C., and for medicinal use in another 29 states, has led to billions of dollars in sales for growers, sellers, and billions of dollars in taxes for the states. It has also led to increased risk of product liability litigation against those same growers, sellers, and governmental agencies who license the businesses. Many, if not most, of the insurance policies purporting to cover the growers and sellers are likely modified standard product liability and CGL policies which have explicit exclusions for the sale, manufacture, or ingestion of psychotropic substances, including marijuana.Colorado Supreme Court Shakes Up Offset Rules For Insurers Charging Multiple Premiums
In Calderon v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 383 P.3d 676 (2016), the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed an action filed by Calderon against his own automobile insurer after being struck by an uninsured motorist. The facts of the case were undisputed: an uninsured driver ran a stop sign, collided with Calderon, and Calderon sustained injuries that rendered him unable to work for over a month.