Zenith Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
C101549
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 1, 2025Background
- Javier Hernandez, a farm laborer employed by Ceja Reyes, Inc., was injured during his commute home in a vanpool arranged by a coworker, not by the employer.
- Ceja Reyes did not provide or arrange employee transportation and expressly disclaimed responsibility for employee commute arrangements in the employment contract.
- Hernandez did not own a car or have a driver’s license; he paid for a seat in the vanpool, which was run as an independent side-business by another worker.
- The van involved in the accident was neither certified as a farm labor vehicle nor driven by a licensed driver; Hernandez sustained severe injuries in the crash.
- Zenith Insurance, Ceja Reyes’s workers’ comp carrier, denied the claim on the basis of the "going and coming rule." The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) ruled in Hernandez’s favor, applying special risk and dual purpose exceptions. Zenith sought review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Going and Coming Rule | Hernandez not barred—exceptions apply (employer transportation or benefit to employer). | Zenith: Standard commute, no employer-provided transportation—exceptions not met. | Going and coming rule applies; exceptions do not. |
| Special Risk Exception | The commute exposed Hernandez to unique risks not shared by public due to his circumstances. | Employer had no control or knowledge of risk; no special circumstances at employer's premises. | Exception does not apply—risks were not unique to employment nor tied to employer's premises. |
| Dual Purpose Exception | Commute had a business purpose as synchronized arrival benefited employer's operations. | Benefit was merely employee presence—no special employment-related purpose. | Exception does not apply—no extra benefit outside standard employee attendance. |
| Misapplication of Exceptions by WCAB | Board properly applied exceptions due to circumstance-specific risks and employer’s knowledge. | Board misapplied law; facts do not fit established exception doctrines. | Board erred in legal application; order annulled and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 37 Cal.3d 559 (Cal. 1984) (defines the going and coming rule and special risk exception in workers' compensation cases)
- Hinojosa v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 8 Cal.3d 150 (Cal. 1972) (outlines extraordinary circumstances removing commute from standard rule)
- Parks v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 33 Cal.3d 585 (Cal. 1983) (expounds the two-prong test for special risk exception)
- Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 40 Cal.3d 345 (Cal. 1985) (reviewing legal error and factual findings in workers’ comp denials)
- General Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 16 Cal.3d 595 (Cal. 1976) (examples where special risk exception applies near employer’s premises)
- Bramall v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 78 Cal.App.3d 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (describes the dual purpose exception standards)