Alexander R. and Rebecca Davis v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, 443 S.W.3d 260

Ronald Davis, an employee of Tejas Securities, traveled to New York for a business meeting scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2009; employer paid airfare and hotel and he arrived Saturday, July 18.
On Sunday, July 19 at ~10:30 a.m., Davis was struck by a bicycle while crossing a street about 10 blocks from his hotel; he later died from the injuries.
The parties stipulated to the key facts: the trip was for business, Davis was away from his hotel walking when struck, and neither party knew his purpose, origin, or destination for that walk.
The DWC hearing officer and appeals panel found Davis was not acting in the course and scope of employment when injured; appellants (his children) appealed to district court and moved for summary judgment.
An associate judge granted appellants’ summary judgment; the trial court reversed, granted Texas Mutual’s traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, and denied appellants’ motion. Appellants appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, holding appellants (as the parties appealing the DWC decision) bore the burden to prove by a preponderance that Davis was acting in furtherance of employer’s business at the time of the injury and they failed to meet that burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davis was in the course and scope of employment when injured	Because Davis was on an overnight business trip, continuous-coverage applies and his walk ten blocks from the hotel is a basic activity (like eating/sleeping) furthering employer’s business, so employer is liable	Appellee argued appellants failed to prove Davis was acting in furtherance of employer’s business at the time of the injury and there is no evidence of a work-related purpose for the walk	Court held appellants bore burden to prove course-and-scope by preponderance, offered no evidence of work-related purpose for the walk, and affirmed summary judgment for Texas Mutual (no compensable injury)

Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, 381 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2012) (party may seek judicial review of appeals panel decision)
Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (standards for traditional summary judgment)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2010) (course-and-scope requires relation to employer’s business and furtherance of that business)
Shelton v. Standard Ins. Co., 389 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1965) (continuous-coverage rule for employees required to travel)
Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2010) (burden on appellant in judicial review of DWC appeals panel decision)