Seabright Insurance Company v. Maximina Lopez, Beneficiary of Candelario Lopez
465 S.W.3d 637
| Tex. | 2015Background
- Candelario Lopez, a long‑term employee of Interstate Treating, worked on temporary, remote installation jobs and was expected to secure temporary lodging while on assignment.
- Interstate Treating provided Lopez a company vehicle, paid its insurance and fuel, and paid Lopez an hourly wage plus per diem for lodging/food; travel time was unpaid.
- Lopez chose to stay ~40 miles from the Ridge, Texas job site in Marlin and routinely drove from that motel to the site, sometimes carrying co‑employees.
- On September 11, 2007, Lopez died in a company vehicle while driving to the Ridge job site with two co‑workers.
- SeaBright (insurer) denied workers’ comp benefits arguing Lopez was not acting in the course and scope of employment; administrative hearing and appeals panel found the injury compensable.
- Trial court and the court of appeals affirmed; the Texas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed that Lopez’s death occurred in the course and scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maximina/claimant) | Defendant's Argument (SeaBright/insurer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez’s travel originated in employer’s business | Travel to/from temporary lodging to remote job site was integral to Interstate Treating’s business model and thus originated in employment | Commute risk is societal; Lopez was simply commuting to a fixed job site so travel did not originate in employment | Originated in employment — relationship between travel and work was so close it "had to do with and originated in" employer’s business |
| Whether travel furthered employer’s business | Travel to the job site made the employment possible and thus furthered employer’s business | Even if travel furthered business, that alone is insufficient without origination nexus | Furthered employer’s business — undisputed that Lopez was traveling to the job site |
| Applicability of the "coming and going" exclusion (Lab. Code §401.011(12)(A)) | Exclusion does not apply because employer furnished and paid for transportation (exception (i)) | Employer furnished vehicle but argued overall travel still not within course and scope absent stronger nexus | Exception (A)(i) satisfied — employer paid for/ furnished transportation, so exclusion inapplicable |
| Whether summary judgment evidence conclusively established compensability | Claimant asserted undisputed facts established both elements as matter of law | Insurer argued genuine issue existed and travel was ordinary commute not covered | Court held summary judgment evidence conclusively established course and scope; affirmed judgment for claimant |
Key Cases Cited
- Leordeanu v. American Protection Insurance Co., 330 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2010) (sets two‑part test: origination and furtherance for course and scope)
- Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Inge, 208 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. 1948) (employer‑furnished or required transportation to remote site integral to employment)
- Meyer v. Western Fire Ins. Co., 425 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1968) (travel pursuant to express or implied employment conditions can originate in employment)
- Shelton v. Standard Ins. Co., 389 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1965) (relationship so close between travel and employment satisfies origination inquiry)
- Smith v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, 105 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. 1937) (employees whose work necessarily involves travel are subject to travel hazards as part of employment)