When Tyson & Mendes first launched its Women’s Initiative, topics of discussion largely revolved around the importance of establishing a work-life balance, dedicating time to focus on self-care, and healthily managing often conflicting career and personal obligations. While feedback was positive, participants were left with one main question after these lessons: how do I navigate the conversations I need to have in order to achieve this balance?
In 2018, Tyson & Mendes will shine a spotlight on our female attorneys to celebrate their hard work, achievements and contributions to the firm. This month, Mina Miserlis joined Bob Tyson and Pat Mendes as the firm’s third Equity Partner since its inception in 2002. We could not think of a better candidate to kick off our series!
Last week the California Court of Appeal issued another huge victory to defendants by extending the reach of the landmark California Supreme Court Howell v. Hamilton Meats case to include future medical benefits under the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (“ACA”). In 2011, Howell sent shock waves through the insurance industry when the Court examined the “billed vs. paid” rule and concluded an injured plaintiff is limited to recovering the discounted amount private health insurance pays on their behalf for as past medical damages, not the inflated amount medical providers bill health insurance companies for their services. (Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541.) In 2013, the California Court of Appeal extended Howell‘s “paid” rule to apply to future medical expenses and noneconomic damages. (Cornenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1331-1333.)
Seattle Partner Levi Bendele and Associate Colin Hutchinson-Flaming defeated a pair of Super Lawyer plaintiff attorneys in King County Superior Court in a six-day, admitted liability, rear-end accident jury trial. The defense trial team employed the Tyson & Mendes defense methods to obtain a verdict of $7,850 when plaintiff’s attorneys asked the jury for $275,000. Months before trial, plaintiff walked out of mediation after reducing her final demand to defendant’s policy limits of $100,000.
Northern California Partner Jim Sell and Managing Partner Bob Tyson teamed up to defeat one of the most well-known plaintiff’s attorneys in California, Roger Dreyer of Dreyer Babich. Dreyer sought $6,000,000 in this admitted liability, three week jury trial in Napa, California. This included almost $2,000,000 in past and future medical expenses for back and neck surgeries the plaintiff underwent and will need in the future. The lowest settlement demand just before trial was $4,000,000. On Thursday, May 26, 2016, the jury returned a verdict of only $389,000, and plaintiff was found 40% at fault. After post-judgment reductions, the plaintiff may end up owing the construction company client money!
I know, I know – as a claims professional you do not want to give a dime at mediation! But in order to get what you want, you need to give a little bit. I am not even referring to money. We all know money is the primary motivator of claimants and plaintiffs, so if you are not willing to throw money at them, you need a strategy to bring them into the realm of reality to reach a reasonable resolution at mediation. Let’s take a look at what you can give your opponent in order to get the settlement you want.
While hindsight is always 20/20, important lessons stem from this jury trial which apply to cases across the country. This article assesses the Andrews trial and provides four “lessons” for businesses, insurance professionals, and defense counsel to avoid runaway jury verdicts: (1) Spot and Slay the Reptile; (2) Accept Responsibility for Something; (3) Always Give a Number, Even When Seeking a Defense Verdict; and (4) Proceed Delicately.
It happens during every Major League Baseball game – a ball is batted out of the field-of-play and into the grandstand. Sometimes even a bat or sections of a broken bat will be launched into the stands. This of course poses an injury risk to the spectators, especially those seated along the first and third base foul lines.
In the recent Fourth District case Grace v. Mansourian (2015) 2015 WL 3539748, the appellate court held the plaintiffs were entitled to recover costs of proving liability and damages after the defendants denied certain requests for admission, concluding defendants had no reasonable basis for denying these issues.