Primary Industries

Industry Associations

  • California Academy of Appellate Lawyers (Emeritus)

Bar & Court Admissions

  • State Bar of California
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California 


University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, J.D.

Northwestern University, B.S.

Photo of Richard A. Neumeyer

Richard A. Neumeyer

Of Counsel
Los Angeles
T: 310.299.5500
F: 310.299.5600

Richard Neumeyer is of counsel in M&R’s Los Angeles office. He handles a wide variety of civil appeals and appellate writ proceedings.

A nationally recognized appellate attorney, Richard specializes in pleadings and writs before, during and after trial, as well as advising clients' trial counsel at all stages of litigation. In fact, he routinely provides his expertise to trial counsel so they can focus on factual litigation.With a legal practice principally devoted to insurance coverage, bad faith, and appellate litigation, Richard has extensive experienceand has achieved great successin state and federal courts. In fact, he has won landmark decisions in insurance law, products liability and procedural matters, which have led to his election to the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers.

Richard has served as a Judge Pro Tem of the Los Angeles Municipal and Superior Courts and an arbitrator for the Los Angeles Superior Court. He has also served as an Attorney Settlement Officer in the Court of Appeal's Attorney Appellate Settlement Program.

Published Decisions


Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725: Represented General Motors in a milestone products liability case that established that principles of comparative fault apply to products liability claims.

Globe Indemnity Company v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 725: Held the insurer has a right to require the insured to submit to an examination under oath concerning all proper subjects of inquiry and cannot act in bad faith by withholding payments, no matter how long it takes for insurer to process the claim.

St. Paul Mercury Ins. Company v. Medical Lab. Network, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 1988) 690 F.Supp. 901: Held that coverage for accidental events does not extend to alleged tortious constructive discharge of an employee claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress.

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Ralee Engineering Company (9th Cir. 1986) 804 F.2d 520: Held that coverage for accidental events does not extend to intentional discharge of an employee and that the insurer may obtain reimbursement of defense costs if it has specifically reserved the right to do so.

Mercury Casualty Company v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1027: Established that the prevailing plaintiff in a personal injury suit may not collaterally attack the size of a judgment by suing the insurer and the defense expert and that an insurer may decline to settle a case it thinks will be won at trial.

Soto v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 420: Represented Royal Insurance in a Court of Appeal case which held that workers' compensation is an exclusive remedy for alleged unreasonable delay in payment of benefits and that family members of the insured have no cause of action under the Unfair Practices Act.

California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Company (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 1: Represented Royal Insurance in a case that reversed a $7 million bad faith award and established that an expert witness’s opinion that a carrier has acted in bad faith cannot be used as testimony.

Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438: Represented General Motors in a case that established that a manufacturer may file amended responses to interrogatories without penalty.

Zieman Manufacturing Company v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (9th Cir. 1983) 724 F.2d 1343: Held that no automatic conflict of interest arises between the insurer and the insured when a claim for punitive damages is made. Zieman preceded San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494, which disagreed with Zieman and led to infamous abuse by “Cumis" counsel. In 1987, the California Legislature enacted Civil Code Section 2860 which, inter alia, adopted the Zieman analysis.

City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Company (1979)88 Cal.App.3d 31: Represented Globe Indemnity in a case that established the California rule that punitive damages are not covered by insurance.

Endicott v. Nissan Motor Corp.(1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 917: Represented Nissan Motor Corp. in case that established that Plaintiff must prove enhancement of injuries in "crashworthiness" cases, thus expanding on Self v. General Motors Corp(1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 1, 116 Cal.Rptr. 575, which established superseding cause as a defense. (Self was overruled on other grounds in Soule v. General Motors (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548).