American Casualty Co. of Reading, Penn. v. Denise Bushman as Beneficiary of Clayton F. Bushman, Jr.
04-14-00685-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 16, 2015Background
- Appellant seeks rehearing of a prior ruling on compensability in a commuting case under a three-factor test (furtherance, origination, and an exception to the commuting exclusion).
- The opinion analyzed whether any single factor suffices and whether origination was improperly conflated with furtherance or with the statutory exceptions.
- Appellant argues the court failed to conduct a fact-intensive evaluation of the employer’s business model and treated gratuitous transportation as if it created origination.
- The motion contends the court improperly used the exceptions to the coming-and-going exclusion to satisfy origination, and applied a continuous-coverage notion to commuting.
- The dispute centers on whether mileage reimbursement and employer-directed travel to a different site properly establish origination or merely reflect gratuitous transportation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is origination a separate, fact-intensive inquiry from furtherance and the statutory exceptions? | Bushman (Appellant) | Bushman (Appellee) | Yes, origination must be separate and fact-specific. |
| Did the court improperly conflate furtherance with origination in evaluating Clayton Bushman’s travel? | Appellant | Appellee | Yes, improper substitution of factors occurred. |
| Were the statutory exceptions to the commuting exclusion properly used to establish origination? | Appellant | Appellee | No, exceptions should be evaluated separately from origination. |
| Did the court improperly expand continuous coverage to out-of-town commuting? | Appellant | Appellee | No, continuous coverage not applicable to this commuting context. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Home Assur. Co. v. De Los Santos, 4:10-00852-CV, 2012 WL 4096528 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (company-provided vehicle not determinative of origination without necessity)
- Collins v. Indemnity Ins. of North America, 2011 WL 1631590 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (travel home from Houston to San Antonio; lack of work-directed travel undermines origination)
- Seabright Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 427 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (employer-provided transport can evidence origination but not by itself; requires fact-intensive analysis)
- Seabright Ins. Co. v. Lopez, S.W.3d , 2015 WL 3653289 (Tex. 2015) (Texas Supreme Court reaffirmed fact-intensive approach to origination and rejected broad continuous-coverage expansion)
- Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2010) (origination requires careful evaluation of employer’s business model)