Bar & Court Admissions
- State Bars of California and Texas
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern, Central, Southern and Northern Districts of California
American Association of University Women
Women in Networking
Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women
Multiracial Americans of Southern California
South Bay Center for Counseling
Southwestern University School of Law, J.D.
Oklahoma State University, B.S.
Lydia E. Hachmeister
Lydia Hachmeister is counsel in M&R's Los Angeles office and a member of the firm's Appellate Department. She represents insurers in complex insurance coverage and bad faith litigation and appeals.
Working hand-in-hand with carriers, Lydia routinely evaluates novel insurance claims, monitors “Cumis” counsel, negotiates with other insurance companies, and defends and initiates declaratory relief, contribution, and bad faith actions. She also handles matters against insureds seeking reimbursement of defense costs and indemnity.
Lydia is known for her work on appeals, as well as law and motion, pleadings, and writs (both before and during trial). Likewise, she is sometimes retained to advise clients’ trial counsel during all stages of litigation.
Lydia has served on the Boards of Directors for the South Bay Center for Counseling and the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women. She is currently involved with the Multiracial Americans of Southern California (MASC), a nonprofit organization that promotes awareness and education and support for multiethnic and multiracial individuals and transracially-adopted families.
Prior to commencing her legal career, Lydia worked as a social worker and served as a liaison between the Oklahoma Department of Welfare and the Oklahoma Juvenile Court, representing the interests of abused children.
Awards & Recognitions
Lydia is recognized by Martindale-Hubbell as an AV (Preeminent) peer-rated attorney, the highest possible Martindale attorney rating for legal ability and professional ethics
ACS Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th: Successfully defended an insurer in a case in which the Court held that an insured’s unsolicited fax transmissions of ads did not trigger the carrier's duty to defend under the advertising injury offense “making known to any person or organization written or spoken material that violates an individual’s right of privacy.” The coverage was found to apply to liability for injury caused by the disclosure of private content to a third party (invasion of secrecy privacy), not to injury caused by receipt of the unsolicited fax (invasion of solitude privacy). Consequently, there was no coverage for “property damage” caused by an “accident” because, even assuming the former, there was no “accident” where the insured intended the fax transmissions to occur.
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Frontier Pacific Insurance Co., (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1234: Represented St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. in obtaining a decision that an additional insured has no reasonable expectation of coverage for its own negligence or strict products liability when its contract with the named insured required indemnity and insurance coverage only for liability caused by the named insured. Further, a standard 2010 additional insured endorsement providing coverage for liability arising out of the named insured's ongoing operations for the additional insured did not cover liability arising out of defects in equipment leased from the additional insured but used in operations for a third party. Where the indemnity and insurance provisions of the contract depended upon the named insured's liability for the claimed injuries, allocation of a settlement among insurers required apportionment of fault in addition to equitable principles.
Hooker v. Department of Transportation, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198: Represented CalTrans in a case where the California Supreme Court held that a hirer of an independent contractor was not liable to an employee of that contractor merely because the hirer retained control over safety conditions at a work site. Liability could only be imposed where the hirer's negligent exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries. Mere evidence that a hirer was aware of an unsafe practice and failed to correct it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact that the hirer's exercise of retained control over safety issues affirmatively contributed to the employee's injuries, or even to the adoption of that unsafe practice by the employee.
Globe Indemnity Company v. Superior Court, (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 725: Represented an insurer in a case holding that it had a right to require an insured to submit to an examination under oath concerning all proper subjects of inquiry and did not act in bad faith by withholding payments, no matter how long it took for the insurer to process a claim.