Danielle Vukovich is an Associate in Tyson & Mendes’ San Diego office. Her practice focuses primarily on defending personal injury, general liability, and professional malpractice claims.
During law school and while awaiting bar results, Ms. Vukovich worked as a law clerk at Tyson & Mendes, gaining experience in various areas of insurance defense such as personal injury, premises liability, professional malpractice, and employment law. As a law clerk, she researched complex legal issues and assisted in drafting numerous winning pre-trial motions including demurrers, motions to strike, and motions to compel.
Ms. Vukovich earned her J.D. in 2018 from the University of San Diego School of Law, and received a business and corporate law concentration. During law school, she was the managing editor of the San Diego International Law Journal and was invited to publish her comment on corporate governance and shareholder rights. She was also an Academic Success Fellow for contracts law and torts law, and a Research Assistant focusing on employment law and intellectual property research. Ms. Vukovich received her B.A. in Political Science and her B.S. in Psychology, with honors, from the University of La Verne in 2015.
Outside of the practice of law, Ms. Vukovich enjoys hiking, cooking, and watching baseball.
Potter v. Zucker Hillside Hosp., 176 A.D.3d 884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgmt., Inc., No. 73, 2019 WL 5429374 (N.Y. Oct. 24, 2019)
Churchman v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District (2019) No. A151698 2019 WL 4050993
Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company (2019) No. S239510) 2019 WL 4065521
A United States District Court judge recently ruled that Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation does not have to cover litigation costs incurred by a school district in defending a lawsuit arising out of an incident involving a construction worker who allegedly sexually assaulted a student while working at a school within the district. The ruling is the latest development in Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc.
The Colorado Court of Appeals, Divisions I and V have both recently issued rulings in the last month with holdings that may affect civil litigants, particularly insurance carriers. In Lorenzen v. Pinnacol Assurance, the Colorado Court of Appeals, Division I, addressed the issue of what constitutes a viable theory of causation and the requirements for adequately pleading a claim for noneconomic injuries unrelated to physical impairment. Additionally, in Houchin v. Denver Health and Hospital Authority, the Court of Appeals, Division V, addressed whether claims brought under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act against a state hospital operator are subject to the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.
Nevada may become one of the first states to allow police to use a technology to find out if a driver was using a cellphone during a car accident. Nevada Assembly Bill 200 seeks to introduce a device named “textalyzer,” which would grant police officers the ability to connect a driver’s cellphone to the device and check the driver’s recent activity.
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, recently issued several rulings relevant to insurance carriers, particularly those providing coverage for property loss. In Zurich American Insurance Company v. Puccini, LLC, the court addressed whether an insurer may maintain a subrogation action against a tenant not named in its insurance policy with the landlord of the property at issue. Then in People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Garcia, the court addressed the appropriateness of compelling appraisal based on causations being a question of coverage, and therefore, for the court or one of amount of loss, and instead, for the appraisers. Similarly, in Safepoint Insurance Company v. Gomez, the court addressed whether the court properly compelled the parties to continue appraisal when the insurer terminated the appraisal process after the insurer had already invoked appraisal pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy and the appraisal process had already commenced.
Arizona Supreme Court Determines That Assignment of Rights to Workers’ Compensation Benefits Depends on the Law of the State Paying Those Benefits
Jackson v. Eagle KMC L.L.C.
Amica Mutual Insurance Company v. Willis
In an insurance coverage suit, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling, which found an uninsured motorist policy exclusion invalid because the policy did not include a reciprocal limitation on liability coverage. In this case, Appellee Willis was walking when she was hit by an uninsured golf cart. Her uninsured motorist carrier, Appellant Amica Mutual Insurance Company, denied her benefits for damages resulting from the accident because her policy did not consider golf carts as uninsured “motor vehicle.” The Court of Appeal found the uninsured motorist exception in Appellant’s policy is inconsistent with the underlying purpose and statutory intent of uninsured motorist coverage. Uninsured motorist coverage was created in order to enable an insured to receive the same recovery he or she would have received had the tortfeasor been covered by a liability policy. Thus, the Court held uninsured motorist coverage must be reciprocal to liability coverage which exceeds that required by law.