Sander R. Dawson

Top rated Insurance Coverage attorney in Sedona, Arizona

Dawson & Rosenthal PC
Sander R. Dawson
Dawson & Rosenthal PC

Practice Areas: Insurance Coverage, Civil Rights, Personal Injury; view more

Licensed in Arizona since: 2015

Education: California Western School of Law

Selected to Rising Stars: 2019 - 2023
Virtual Appointments

Dawson & Rosenthal PC

25 Schnebly Hill Rd
Sedona, AZ 86336 Visit website


Handling bad faith insurance claims on behalf of clients across Arizona and California, Sander R. Dawson is an attorney at Dawson & Rosenthal, P.C. He is an advocate for people who have suffered due to corporate misconduct and selfish insurance companies. Prepared for any battle, Mr. Dawson holds these providers accountable to the policies they have in place.In many cases, these matters are resolved outside the courtroom. This often preserves time and resources and is understandably the route many people prefer. However, Mr. Dawson does not settle for less than what clients deserve. He is passionate about helping people recover the compensation due to them and has gone to trial a number of times to ensure just that. Mr. Dawson is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Though aggressive when dealing with insurance companies, Mr. Dawson treats clients with compassion. Facing these situations is often stressful and disconcerting. As such, Mr. Dawson listens to clients’ concerns and responds to them honestly and promptly. He steers people through even the most complicated issues by plainly explaining the facts and the options available.In 2009, Mr. Dawson earned a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Arizona State University. He then graduated cum laude in 2013 from the California Western School of Law, where he was a member of the school’s law review.Outside his practice, Mr. Dawson is a member of the Arizona Association for Justice. He holds an Avvo “Very Good” rating.

Practice areas

Insurance Coverage, Civil Rights, Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff

Focus areas

Bad Faith Insurance, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Personal Injury - Plaintiff, Police Misconduct, Wrongful Death

  • 80% Insurance Coverage
  • 10% Civil Rights
  • 10% Personal Injury - General: Plaintiff

First Admitted: 2013, California

Professional Webpage:

Pro bono/Community Service:
  • Pro Bono Legal Honors Society
Educational Background:
  • Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, B.A., Bachelor of Arts, Major: Political Science, 2009
  • Clabough v. State of Arizona. Over $4 million verdict awarded to a married couple after the husband suffered a chemical inhalation injury as a result of the State of Arizona's negligent maintenance of batteries., 2015
  • Dinsbach v. Harris The plaintiff was in custody as a pretrial detainee when a Maricopa County detention officer severely beat her without provocation or justification, hospitalizing her with a fractured jaw and two black eyes. The court granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the civil rights claim before trial. After a jury trial on the issue of damages, the jury awarded plaintiff $180,000 in compensatory damages and the court later awarded over $180,000 in costs and fees, for a total recovery of over $360,000., 2021
  • McKibben v. Knuth - § 1983 civil rights case for excessive use of force. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed district court's ruling on summary judgment in plaintiff's favor. -McKibben v. Knuth, 777 F. App'x 250 (9th Cir. 2019), 2019
  • Sell v. Country Life Insurance Co. Federal District Court judge granted Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions against Country Life for litigation misconduct. The Court struck Defendant's Answer to the Complaint, deemed Plaintiff's allegations of bad faith admitted, and entered default against the defendant. The Court found, in relevant part:  "Plaintiff has presented substantial and compelling evidence that demonstrates serious misconduct by Defendant and its counsel in this case. Testimony from the evidentiary hearing, deposition testimony, and documentary evidence, as described above, combine to show a concerted effort to wrongfully withhold evidence, misrepresent the facts, and mislead Plaintiff and the Court to comport with Defendant's and counsels' false narrative. Defendant and its counsel withheld relevant and discoverable evidence by essentially ignoring requests for production of documents and then by frivolously asserting the documents were privileged. They misrepresented the facts surrounding their conduct during discovery by asserting they had conducted reasonable searches in response to Plaintiff's  requests when they had not. They misrepresented the facts of the case by redacting highly relevant information and making false assertions of privilege. They then presented false deposition and hearing testimony to align with their fabricated account of what occurred. By doing so, Defendant and counsel sought to prevent Plaintiff and the Court from learning the truth about the circumstances surrounding the termination of Plaintiff's disability claim, thereby misleading Plaintiff and the Court into accepting their narrative. The Court finds that the evidence amply demonstrates that Defendant's and counsels' misconduct was willful and done in bad faith....", 2016
  • Hunton v. American Zurich Insurance Co. After three-week trial, jury found workers' compensation insurance carrier, Zurich, liable for bad faith and punitive damages for its handling of Mr. Hunton's workers' compensation claim. More than a year before the trial, Zurich had accepted the claim and was paying Mr. Hunton benefits. But the evidence proved Zurich had initially denied the claim and, after accepting it, later terminated Hunton's benefits to appease Hunton's employer, Sundt Construction Co. -- i.e., Zurich's large, premium-paying customer. The evidence established that Zurich's bad faith claims handling was done pursuant to a business model that directs its insurance adjusters to keep the "customer" happy, despite the customer's financial interests being directly contrary to the injured worker's interests. Accordingly, the jury awarded Hunton $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1M in punitive damages., 2018
  • State of Arizona v. Nardelli. Client charged with misdemeanor theft was acquitted by a unanimous jury after less than 15 minutes of deliberating., 2015
  • McClure v. Country Life Insurance Co. & CC Services, Inc. The claimant was in his early 40s when he suffered a traumatic brain injury and then developed severe depression leading to multiple hospitalizations for suicidal ideation. McClure's disability insurance company, Country Life, approved payment of monthly benefits initially, but then unexpectedly terminated the claim a year later. It did so without gathering any of McClure's treating physicians' records for eight to nine months leading up to the claim termination. In its letter terminating benefits, Country Life told McClure that it had carefully reviewed extensive medical records and determined there was no evidence of any cognitive or mental health impairments. McClure was unaware that Country Life did not bother to gather or review recent medical records from his physicians, even those who had certified his disability. The termination of his benefits was financially and emotionally devastating to McClure and his family. McClure's attorneys argued that Country Life took deliberate measures to terminate his claim, blatantly ignoring evidence that he was disabled. The Jury agreed, and found that the termination was done with an "evil mind" and with conscious disregard of the harm McClure would likely suffer. Following three weeks of hearing evidence, the jury deliberated over the course of two days and found Country Life and C.C. Services acted in bad faith and consciously disregarded the risk of harming its insured. The jury awarded $5 Million in punitive damages, $2.5 Million against each company., 2017
Bar/Professional Activity:
  • United States District Court Central District of California, 2020
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2018
  • Arizona
  • Arizona Association for Justice / Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
  • U.S. District Court Southern District of California, 2017
  • California
  • U.S. District Court District of Arizona
  • Selected to 2021 Southwest Rising Stars, 2021 Southwest Rising Stars, Super Lawyers, 2021
  • Selected to 2021 San Diego Rising Stars, 2021 San Diego Rising Stars, Super Lawyers, 2021
  • 2020 Southwest Rising Stars, 2020 Southwest Rising Stars, Super Lawyers, 2020
  • Rising Star, SuperLawyers, Rising Star, SuperLawyers, 2019
  • 2020 San Diego Rising Stars, 2020 San Diego Rising Stars, Super Lawyers, 2020

Office location for Sander R. Dawson

25 Schnebly Hill Rd
Sedona, AZ 86336

Phone: 800-598-5017


5 Years Rising Stars
  • Rising Stars: 2019 - 2023

Additional sources of information about Sander R. Dawson

Attorney resources for Sander R. Dawson

Page Generated: 0.14550113677979 sec