Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Ronald Jerrols
385 S.W.3d 619
Tex. App.2012Background
- Claimants Jerrols, Williams, and Luna were injured in a 2008 traffic collision in New Mexico while returning to a work site after lunch during a multi-week New Mexico assignment.
- They were required to use an employer-provided crew cab truck and could not bring personal vehicles.
- They were paid hourly for 10 hours per day and received a $25 per diem while away from home.
- Lunch occurred at the Town & Country about two miles from the tank farm; they ate and performed personal and work tasks during lunch.
- Accident occurred while traveling from Town & Country back to the tank farm; disputes arose over whether injuries were within the course and scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lunch-break travel originated in employment. | Jerrols/Williams/Luna contend travel originated in employer’s business. | Texas Mutual argues travel was personal during lunch and not within course and scope. | Origination established; travel originated in employment. |
| Whether lunch-break travel furthered the employer’s affairs. | Lunch activities, including work discussions, furthered Midwestern’s business. | Travel may not necessarily further employer’s business; at best contested. | Furtherance established; some lunch activities plausibly furthered employer’s affairs. |
| Whether the exclusions for coming-and-going and dual purpose travel foreclose coverage. | Exceptions do not automatically exclude travel; dual-purpose nature exists. | Travel to Town & Country is excluded or not sufficiently dual-purpose. | Not dispositive on exclusions; dual-purpose travel creates fact issues; coming-and-going not controlling here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2010) (origin/furtherance distinctions in course-and-scope; dual purposes not conflated with coming-and-going)
- Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. McVey, 339 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (mutual exclusivity of (A) and (B) travel exclusions; origin/furtherance framework)
- Shelton v. Standard Ins. Co., 389 S.W.2d 290 (Tex. 1965) (continuous coverage: sleeping/eating during travel may be within course and scope)
- Evans v. Employers' Ins. Co. of Wausau, 790 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. 1990) (origin of travel in employment; special-mission concepts for travel)
- Rose v. Odiorne, 795 S.W.2d 210 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990) (travel originates in employment when travel is pursuant to contract)