During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Personal Injury

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Letgolts v. David H. Pierce & Assocs., PC, No. B306905, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 928 (Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2021)

In this attorney malpractice case, the trial court properly ruled against plaintiff on the case-within-a-case, establishing that the underlying insurance claim had no merit, so the attorney's negligence in not filing suit in a timely manner did not cause plaintiff's loss.  The insurance claim arose under a contractor's CGL policy, and the policy's own work exclusion clearly barred insurance coverage… Read More

Mitchell v. Los Robles Reg’l Med. Ctr., No. B309123, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 927 (Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2021)

CCP 340.5's one-year statute of limitations, not the general two-year limitations period for personal injuries applied to this action by an emergency room patient who was injured when she collapsed on the way back from the bathroom.  The emergency room nursing staff made a medical decision that the patient did not need to be accompanied to and from the restroom. … Read More

Hoffman v. Young (2020)

Landowners could not invoke Civil Code 836 recreational use immunity to bar a personal injury action by a minor female who was injured riding her motorcycle on the landowners' motocross track because the landowners' 18-year old son who lived with them had invited the plaintiff onto the property to use the motocross track.  When a child of the landowner is… Read More

Morgan v. Davidson

by Jan T. Chilton |

Defendant’s repeated kicks and punches of the plaintiff was sufficient evidence of malice and/or intent to injure, thus providing sufficient justification for a punitive damages award. Read More

Marteney v. Elementis Chemicals, Inc. (LAOSD Asbestos Cases)

by Jan T. Chilton |

Unless a personal injury plaintiff’s (future) heirs join in the settlement agreement individually, they are not bound by it or by its releases, so money paid to the plaintiff to settle future wrongful death suits is worth only as much as the hold harmless agreement by the now-deceased plaintiff is; moreover, non-settling defendants cannot take advantage of any setoff as… Read More

Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc.

by Jan T. Chilton |

Claims for prenatal injuries to a baby caused by the mother’s exposure to toxic chemicals are governed by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries from exposure to toxic chemicals, which includes tolling provisions for minors and for delayed discovery. Read More