"As previously noted, an employee's travel between home and work furthers the affairs of the employer (the second element of the course and scope definition) because it makes employment possible. Thus, the propriety of summary judgment hinges on the definition's first element—whether the travel originated in the employer's business. There is no bright-line rule for determining whether employee travel originated in the employer's business. Rather, each situation is necessarily dependent on the facts. As a general rule, an employee's travel originates in his employer's business if the travel was pursuant to the express or implied requirements of the employment contract. This reflects the underlying policy goal of allocating to the employer and insurance carrier the risks inherent in an employee's job while leaving to the employee risks that are “shared by society as a whole and do not arise as a result of the work of the employer.” When the employer requires the employee to travel as part of its business—i.e., pursuant to the contract of employment—the risk of traveling stems from that business and properly can be said to arise as a result of the employer's business." [Cites omitted]
Zurich American Ins. Co. v McVey, No. 03–09–00666–CV, 2011 WL 1238657 )Tex. App. - Austin, 2011) Decided March 30, 2011.
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 firstname.lastname@example.org have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.