Barbara Pinkus v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company
487 S.W.3d 616
Tex. App.2015Background
- Ron Pinkus, a North Carolina–based employee, traveled to Dallas on a three‑day employer‑paid business trip; transportation, lodging, and meals were paid by his employer.
- On January 9, 2012 Ron worked a full day, finished around 5:42 p.m., and had no approved business engagements after hours; his supervisor said he was on personal time.
- Ron planned to meet his son Brett for dinner that evening (location not firmly confirmed between Brett’s home and a nearby pizza restaurant); Ron left the hotel and was later involved in a car accident about 11 miles from the office and roughly between the restaurant and Brett’s home.
- Ron was rendered quadriplegic by the accident and later died; Barbara (his widow) filed a beneficiary claim for workers’ compensation benefits which Hartford (the carrier) denied.
- The DWC hearing officer and appeals panel found Ron’s injury compensable; Hartford sought judicial review and moved for traditional summary judgment arguing Ron was off‑duty and not acting in course and scope of employment; Barbara filed competing summary‑judgment motions.
- The trial court granted Hartford’s summary judgment; Barbara appealed challenging compensability and, conditionally, entitlement to attorney’s fees under Tex. Lab. Code § 408.221(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ron was in the course and scope of employment when injured | Ron’s trip was business travel; continuous‑coverage rule covers sleeping/eating on overnight business trips, so meeting son while on trip is within scope | After work Ron was on personal time and made a personal detour to meet his son; travel at time of accident was a personal errand, so not within course and scope | Summary judgment for Hartford affirmed: no genuine fact issue that Ron was not in course and scope when injured |
| Whether dual‑purpose travel exclusion applies / whether exception applies | Meeting son was part of a business trip’s covered activities (meals), so travel could be dual‑purpose and exceptions to exclusion apply | Travel was principally personal at time of accident; summary judgment established lack of business origin/furtherance so dual‑purpose analysis not reached | Court did not reach or apply dual‑purpose exceptions because it found Ron’s travel did not originate in or further employer’s business |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under Tex. Lab. Code § 408.221(c) | If Barbara prevails she should recover fees because Hartford unsuccessfully appealed the DWC decision | Hartford opposes recovery; also argued fee claim not preserved below | Barbara lost on the compensability issue and thus is not prevailing party; fee claim denied |
| Standard of review for trial court’s decision | N/A (procedural) | N/A | De novo review of summary judgment; plaintiff bears burden to defeat no‑evidence motion; court reviews both parties’ evidence when both moved for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelton v. Standard Ins. Co., 389 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1965) (continuous‑coverage rule for employees required to travel overnight)
- SeaBright Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 465 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2015) (standards for reviewing competing summary‑judgment motions and course‑and‑scope analysis)
- Davis v. Texas Mid. Ins. Co., 443 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (modified de novo review of DWC appeals panel decisions)
- Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2010) (burden of proof on party seeking judicial review of DWC appeals panel decision)