Seabright Insurance Company v. Maxima Lopez, Beneficiary of Candelario Lopez
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 905
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Lopez died in a motor vehicle accident while commuting from a Marlin motel to Interstate Treating, Inc.'s Ridge jobsite.
- Lopez's widow sought workers’ compensation; Seabright denied, and the DWC and Appeals Panel initially approved benefits.
- In the trial court, Seabright and Lopez cross-moved for summary judgment on whether Lopez was in the course and scope; the trial court granted Lopez’s motion and denied Seabright’s.
- Lopez traveled in a company-provided, paid-for truck and received a per diem for lodging while away from home; travel time was not compensated.
- Lopez was driving with two co-workers; carpooling occurred in practice, though no express policy existed.
- The court evaluated course and scope under the workers’ compensation framework, considering the coming-and-going rule and exceptions for employer-provided transportation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez’s travel originated in Interstate’s business. | Lopez’s travel originated in Interstate’s business due to job-site nexus and employer housing. | Originating travel is not established by mere travel to work; need a closer link to the employer’s business. | Lopez’s travel originated in Interstate’s business as a matter of law. |
| Whether employer-provided transportation establishes origination under the statute. | Company-provided transportation supports origination, especially when paid for by the employer. | Transportation alone is insufficient without other nexus evidence; gratuitous provision is not per se origination. | Transportation provided by the employer is evidence of nexus but not dispositive; in this case, combined with other facts, it supported origination. |
| Whether the per diem and work-away-from-home circumstances create a sufficient nexus to satisfy course and scope. | Per diem, remote jobsite, and lodging arrangements show the travel related to employment. | Traveling to a distant jobsite is not automatically within course and scope unless the travel originated in the employer’s business. | The evidence shows a close nexus; Lopez’s injury occurred in the course and scope of employment as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2010) (origin of travel must be closely tied to employer’s business)
- Shelton v. Standard Ins. Co., 389 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1965) (continuous coverage rule and travel away from premises)
- Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Patient Advocates of Texas, 136 S.W.3d 643 (Tex. 2004) (liberal construction of the Workers’ Compensation Act to compensate injured workers)
- Am. Gen. Ins. Co. v. Coleman, 303 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. 1957) (gratuitous furnishing of transportation does not automatically bring employee within coverage)
- McVey v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 339 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (employer-provided transportation evidence of nexus, not sole determinant)