Kyle Kveton joined Robie & Matthai in 1987. He serves as the firm's "go to guy" whenever things get really complicated. His expertise in corporate and business law enables him to give practical advice to his clients whether they are in, or seeking to avoid, litigation.
His practice includes litigation of commercial disputes, defense of attorneys in malpractice and malicious prosecution actions, defense of claims against officers and directors, and litigation of insurance disputes.
Kyle has tried over thirty cases to verdict, and the broad range of his trial experience, from mold exposure claims to technical insurance issues to professional liability and partnership disputes, enables him to provide a realistic assessment of what a client faces when they choose to try, rather than settle, their dispute. If the choice is trial, Kyle's skill and determination, combined with his close working relationship with the client, provide the best possible trial presentation.
Kyle is also an integral part of the firm's appellate practice, regularly briefing and arguing matters in the courts of appeal. His clear, concise and straightforward approach has resulted in many favorable appellate decisions, which have established legal principles with impact far beyond the individual case. His work has clarified that in California mediation confidentiality is sacrosanct and that an intentional act, even when the insured did not intend to cause injury, is not a covered event when an injury is foreseeable.
Kyle regularly represented a national brand, privately held pet food company in both litigation and transactional matters. He successfully defended an attempted nationwide class action by defeating class certification, with the denial of certification affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He then recovered a multi-million dollar settlement for the client in litigation against a supplier.
Kyle was retained on eve of trial to defend an insurance broker against a multi-million dollar errors and omissions claim brought by an international entertainment company. He devised a strategy to permit a last-minute amended complaint to be filed by the plaintiff, and then successfully raised the statute of limitations defense on demurrer. Judgment in favor of the client was affirmed by Second District Court of Appeal, with review denied by California Supreme Court.
Kyle tried to a defense verdict one of first cases in Los Angeles County in which multiple plaintiffs alleged personal injuries due to exposure to mold. Kyle precluded expert testimony, from plaintiffs' nationally-known medical expert, as to the health effects of stachybotrys after an Evidence Code 402/405 hearing.
In Freedman v. State Farm Insurance Co. (2009), 173 Cal.App.4th 957, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment in favor of State Farm, confirming that the efficient proximate cause analysis, on which the insured sought to rely, was superseded by case law permitting insurers to draft and enforce policy provisions covering some, but not all, manifestations of a particular peril. A contractor, remodeling a bathroom, had driven a nail through a pipe while hanging new drywall. There was no leak at the time, but years later, corrosion around the nail caused a leak and extensive damage. Because of the exclusion for continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water, the resulting property damage was not covered.
Kyle's work in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores (21 Cal.4th 249) set the standard by which decisions of a Board of Directors of a condominium association are judged. The California Supreme Court concluded: "Where a duly constituted community association board, upon reasonable investigation, in good faith and with regard for the best interest of the community association and its members, exercises discretion, within the scope of its authority under relevant statutes, covenants and restrictions, to select among means for discharging an obligation to maintain and repair a development's common areas, the court should defer to the board's authority and presumed expertise." "Thus, we adopt today for California courts a rule of judicial deference to community association board decision-making that applies, regardless of an association's corporate status, when owners in common-interest developments seek to litigate ordinary maintenance decisions entrusted to the discretion of their association's board of directors."
Kyle was retained shortly before trial to represent a law firm partner in a dispute with his former firm over a final distribution and accounting. He obtained a jury verdict for the entire amount of the partner's claim, in excess of $800,000.
Service to the Courts
Presentations and Publications
|This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [site map]|