National Casualty Co. v. Kinney
90 A.3d 747
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Employees of Tobyhanna Army Depot participated in a federal Mass Transportation Program (MTP) using government-issued vouchers to defray vanpool rental costs; employees chose approved van vendors and could opt out anytime.
- Beck leased a van from Trygar Transportation; Trygar’s insurer is National Casualty Company (NCC). Beck drove with co-workers (MTP participants) as passengers; an accident injured Kinney.
- Kinney sued Beck and Trygar in a separate action. NCC filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that the MTP participants were in the course and scope of employment so the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) was their exclusive remedy and NCC had no coverage obligations.
- The trial court denied NCC’s summary judgment motion; NCC appealed. The Superior Court held the denial was a final, appealable order under the Declaratory Judgments Act.
- On the merits, the court examined (1) whether the employment-contract exception to the coming-and-going rule applied and (2) whether the Ridesharing Act precluded WCA coverage for the injured passenger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (NCC) | Defendant's Argument (Kinney / trial court view) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of denial of summary judgment in declaratory action | Denial disposed of the declaratory claims and is final and appealable | Denial left issues for trial (implicit) | Court: Denial was effectively a negative declaratory judgment resolving NCC’s requested rights; appealable under Declaratory Judgments Act and Pa.R.A.P. 341 |
| Employment-contract exception to coming-and-going rule — did employer control means/costs of commute? | Tobyhanna controlled eligibility, set program rules, and provided vouchers (subsidy), so implied employment contract covers transportation => WCA exclusive remedy | Tobyhanna did not control means (employees chose vendors), vouchers were flat fringe amounts not tied to commute distance/costs, minimal oversight — so no employer control or direct cost provision | Court: No genuine dispute of fact supporting employer control or expense tied to commute; employment-contract exception does not apply |
| Effect of Ridesharing Act on WCA applicability | Ridesharing Act’s WCA provision applies only when employer owns/leases vehicle; Tobyhanna effectively leased by providing vouchers/administering MTP, so WCA should apply | Ridesharing Act excludes WCA for injured passengers in ridesharing; Tobyhanna did not own/lease/contract for the van and merely provided information/vouchers — Act bars WCA recovery for passenger | Court: MTP vanpool fits Ridesharing Act; injured passenger’s claim is excluded from WCA because employer did not own/lease/contract for vehicle and the Act displaces WCA for passengers |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 763 A.2d 813 (Pa. 2000) (Declaratory Judgment Act can make an order final and immediately appealable when it effectively declares parties’ rights)
- Wachs v. W.C.A.B., 884 A.2d 858 (Pa. 2005) (framework for applying the employment-contract exception to the coming-and-going rule)
- Schiavone v. Aveta, 41 A.3d 861 (Pa. Super. 2012) (employment-contract exception applies where employer owned/insured vehicle and paid costs directly related to commute)
- Williams v. W.C.A.B., 721 A.2d 1140 (Pa. Commw. 1998) (flat travel allowances not tied to commute cost/distance do not create an implied contract to provide transportation)
- Leisure Line v. W.C.A.B., 986 A.2d 901 (Pa. Commw. 2009) (per diem or flat travel payments insufficient to satisfy employment-contract exception)