Tami Kay Lee

Tami Kay Lee has more than twenty years of experience as defense counsel, assisting clients in complex insurance matters, including policy analysis, coverage opinions, and commercial general liability. Her work encompasses reinsurance, excess liability, errors and omissions, directors and officers, cyber liability, and data breach losses.

In addition to her legal background, she is a Certified Public Accountant, providing clients with critical insight into financial and accounting aspects that arise in litigation.

Tami regularly defends domestic and surplus lines carriers, corporations, individuals, general and sub-contractors, developers, architects, design professionals, agents and brokers, and accountants in various alternative dispute resolution forums, including arbitration.

Her work includes appellate cases, with a proven track record in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and various California Appellate District Courts. From crafting compelling briefs to delivering impactful oral arguments, Tami takes a lawsuit from the cradle to the grave.

Commercial Liability – Advertising Injury

• The Honorable John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the defendant insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, finding no triable issue of fact as to whether Brighton Collectibles, LLC’s alleged sale of customer lists qualified as an "advertising injury" under the policy. The ruling relied on the California Supreme Court case Hameid v. National Fire Ins. of Hartford, (2003) 31 Cal.4th 16, 28-29, which excluded activities involving direct mail or personal solicitation from the definition of "advertising." Judge Walter also noted that selling personal information could be considered "publication" under the "personal injury" clause, but coverage was barred due to a policy exclusion for publishing activities "by or for" Brighton. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted to the defendant insurer, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London.

Insurance Coverage

• The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted the defendant, an insurer, a motion for summary judgment in response to the plaintiff Biopharma Research Organization, LLC’s complaint alleging bad faith denial of a commercial property loss claim. The plaintiff alleged it was entitled to a new roof costing over $400,000, including punitive damages for the insurer's bad faith denial. The court found no direct physical cause of loss and undisputed evidence showed no wind or hail penetrated the roof, leading to proper denial of the claim.
• In the case of Baback v. Davis, the Sonoma County Superior Court granted the defendant, an insurance agency, summary judgment, finding there was no special duty to provide commercial auto insurance to a catering business. The customer had not been covered for eight years prior to the catastrophic incident resulting in permanent injury to the plaintiff. The agency also argued the "unclean hands" doctrine based on evidence the customer had altered a Certificate of Insurance in the past, suggesting they did not want the coverage.

Professional Liability

• In the case of Reza Fateh Manesh v. Geoffrey G. Melkonian, the Second Appellate District Court of California affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the defendant’s demurrer on legal malpractice claims. In a well-reasoned and fulsome discussion by the Honorable Justice Carl H. Moor with the Honorable Justices Lamar W. Baker and Dorothy C. Kim concurring, the court explained that an attorney’s failure to formally withdraw from representation does not necessarily mean the attorney continues to represent the client, and cited the case of Flake v. Neumiller & Beardslee (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 223, 230–231. The court stated the exception of continuous representation ends when "a client has no reasonable expectation the attorney will provide further legal services." Ibid.
• Prevailed on motion for summary judgment for the defendant insurance agency in Riverside County Superior Court in the case of Inland Properties LLC v. Bulen Insurance Agency. The plaintiff alleged the defendant insurance agency failed to secure coverage for damage caused by a tenant’s criminal acts and misrepresented coverage terms. The court found no evidence to support the claims and granted the defendant summary judgment.
• In a follow-up to the Canan v. Jones case, the Second Appellate District Court of California in Ventura County affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment for the defendant insurance agency. The court found that California law regarding an agent’s duty of care remained unchanged with regard to recommending coverage. The defendant insurance agency was not required to advise the customer to purchase excess coverage for underinsured motorist (UM) insurance from another carrier because the customer had specifically requested a $1 million umbrella policy from the original carrier, which only provided excess liability coverage, not UM.
• The plaintiff policyholders sued the defendant insurance broker for garden variety collateral claims, including Unruh Act violations under Civil Code §51 and elder abuse claims pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code §15610.30, arising from placement of homeowners’ insurance that did not cover burglary of personal property. The defendant insurance broker prevailed on demurred to the collateral claims and the plaintiffs subsequently dismissed all counts. 

• The Los Angeles Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendant insurance agency, ruling the agency had no duty to inspect the plaintiff’s distribution warehouse to confirm compliance with the protective safeguards endorsement. The court also found no implied contract exists requiring the agency to inspect the insured’s property. This decision was based on precedent from Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Superior Court (1993) 215 Cal.App.4th 561, which states no duty to inspect arises from the ordinary broker-insured relationship.
• In the case of Canan v. Jones in Ventura County Superior Court, the plaintiffs alleged that their minor son sustained in excess of $1 million in medical damages in a skateboard accident and claimed their insurance agent was at fault for not providing adequate coverage. The court granted the agent/broker’s motion for summary judgment, citing a standard established nearly 30 years ago in Fitzpatrick v. Hayes (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 916, 920.

• Co-Author, "California: Inns Now Seminal Case for COVID-19 Shutdown Orders," CLM National, August 2022