SeaBright Ins. Co. v. Lopez
No. 14-0272
Case Summary written by Kayla Hackerott, Staff Member.
JUSTICE GREEN delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT, JUSTICE WILLETT, JUSTICE GUZMAN, JUSTICE LEHRMANN, JUSTICE BOYD, JUSTICE DEVINE, and JUSTICE BROWN.
Interstate Treating, Inc. fabricated materials for the oil and gas industry in Odessa, Texas, and also provided installation services at other remote locations. In September 2007, Candelario Lopez was assigned by Interstate Treating to work on the installation at a plant near Ridge, Texas, 450 miles away from his home in Rio Grande City, Texas. While working at this job site, Interstate Treating paid Lopez an hourly wage and per diem for his food and lodging expenses, but Lopez was responsible for making his own living arrangements. The company also provided him with a company vehicle, paid for the insurance, and provided Lopez with a credit card to pay for fuel. Interstate Treating did not pay Lopez for any travel time to get to the job site.
Lopez stayed in a hotel in Marlin, Texas, 40 miles away from the job site. Everyday, Lopez drove from the hotel to the job site, often allowing other employees to carpool with him. On September 11, 2007, while Lopez and two other employees were driving to the job site, Lopez was killed in an automobile accident.
SeaBright Insurance Company, Interstate Treating’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier, denied Maximina death benefits, claiming that at the time of the accident, Lopez was not acting in the course and scope of his employment. During an administrative proceeding, the hearing officer ordered SeaBright to pay the death benefits, finding Lopez was acting in the course and scope of his employment. An appeals panel affirmed the decision. SeaBright sought judicial review, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Maximina’s motion, affirming the administrative decision. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issue: Was Lopez acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his death when he was driving from his hotel room, which the company was paying for, to the remote job site in the company’s vehicle?
This Court previously held that to be part of the “course and scope of employment” the injury must (1) relate to or originate in, and (2) occur in furtherance of the employer’s business. Leodeanu v. American Protection Insurance Co., 330 S.W.3d 239, 241 (Tex. 2010). While an employee’s travel to and from work generally does not meet the first element, it does if “the relationship between the travel and the employment is so close that it can be fairly be said that the injury had to do with and originated in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer.” Shelton v. Standard Ins. Co. 389 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Tex. 1965). This can be met if the employee’s travel was “pursuant to express or implied conditions of his employment contract.” Meyer v. W. Fire Ins. Co., 425 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Tex. 1965).
In analyzing the nature of Interstate Treating’s business, the Court found that the company’s business required non-local work crews to often work on temporary assignments at remote locations to help with the installation process. The Court then analyzed the nature of Lopez’s employment with Interstate Treating. As part of Lopez’s job overseeing installation projects in remote locations, Interstate Treating paid him per diem for food and housing, requiring him to find temporary housing in that area. The company also provided Lopez with a company vehicle, requiring him to travel from the temporary housing to the job site. The Court found Lopez’s travel to and from the remote location, was analogous to employees such as deliverymen or messengers. Because of this, the Court held the relationship between Lopez’s travel and employment is so close that his injury had to do with and originated in the work, thus establishing the first element. The Court also held Maximina established the second element because Lopez’s travel to the job site was in furtherance of Interstate Treating’s business.
According to § 401.011(12)(A)-(B) of the Texas Labor Code, even when both elements are met, an employee still may not be acting in the course and scope of his employment if his actions fall within one of the two exclusions. Subsection (A) applies to travel to and from employment, while subsection (B) applies to travel for both business and personal affairs, otherwise called dual-purpose travel. Because Lopez was not traveling for any personal affairs, the exclusion in subsection (A) applies; however, because Interstate Treating provided Lopez a company vehicle and paid for his transportation, the exclusion of this subsection does not apply.
Because Lopez’s travel to the job site originated in and furthered Interstate Treating’s business, the Court held Lopez was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he died, thus affirming the court of appeals’ judgment.
JUSTICE JOHNSON, dissenting.
Justice Johnson dissented because he did not believe Lopez was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he was killed. While Justice Johnson agreed as to the two elements required for an injury to occur in the course and scope of employment, he explained that in this case, Lopez did not meet the first element because of the “coming and going rule.”
Justice Johnson explained how Lopez was not traveling as part of his work, but merely to get to his work. At the time of the accident, Lopez had not begun working for that day. He further explained that it was not Lopez’s work duties that created the chances of him being injured. Lopez was exposed to the same risk of injury that morning as any other person traveling on public roads. Justice Johnson also noted that Lopez, not Interstate Treating, made the choice to stay in Marlin, 40 miles away from the job site, instead of hotels closer to Ridge. He further noted that according to the record, nothing shows Interstate Treating had to offer transportation, but that Lopez had requested the company truck for the job. According to Justice Johnson, Lopez’s work duties were not analogous to those of delivery and service workers.