Killed on way to conference: Does widow get workers’ comp benefits?
April 11, 2011 by Fred HosierPosted in: Fatality, Special Report, Transportation safety, Workers' comp, new court decision
Employee injury or death while traveling to or from work is usually not covered under workers’ compensation insurance, due to the coming and going rule. But what if the employee was killed while on the way to pick up a co-worker to go to an employer-required conference?
Troy McVey worked for TruGreen LandCare in the Austin, TX area as an operations manager. TruGreen provided him with a company truck so he could travel to various work sites to supervise workers who were landscaping.
McVey usually used the truck to travel from his home to the TruGreen office and then to various work sites.
TruGreen had required McVey to attend a multi-day company leadership conference in Houston. On his way to Houston, he’d planned to pick up a co-worker who had also been required to attend the conference and who lived along the way to Houston.
While on the way to the co-worker’s house, McVey was involved in a crash that killed him. The route he was taking happened to overlap with the same route he would have taken to the TruGreen Austin office each morning.
The insurance carrier denied workers’ compensation survivor’s benefits on the grounds that McVey had merely been traveling to work that day and therefore had not been acting within the course and scope of his employment. This exception to workers’ comp coverage is usually referred to as the “coming and going rule.” The case eventually made its way to a state appeals court.
There are exceptions to the coming and going exception. Sometimes, courts have found that injury or death while traveling for work is covered.
One exception is if transportation is furnished or paid for by the employer. McVey was traveling in a company-provided truck.
The appeals court said that it still needed to be shown that McVey’s travel was within the course and scope of his employment.
The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that there is broad leeway given in favor of an injured employee in cases of overnight travel. The conference that McVey was going to attend was scheduled to take place over multiple consecutive days.
For those reasons the appeals court ruled that the coming and going rule didn’t apply in McVey’s case and that he was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the fatal crash.
The court awarded workers’ comp survivor’s benefits to McVey’s widow.
What do you think about the court’s ruling? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
(Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Beneficiary of Troy McVey, Court of Appeals of TX, No. 03-09-00666-CV, 3/30/11)
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: coming-and-going rule, survivor's benefits, Workers' comp
Loading ...
April 12th, 2011 at 5:18 am
We agree with the Court. The entire opinion is worth reading to get the full flavor of the decision.
It happens that we know the particulars of the accident that killed Mr. McVey; he was not at fault in the accident.
April 12th, 2011 at 7:04 am
I absoutely agree, in this case he was within the scope of employment. I have sales employees all over the US and because they have company cars they are covered 24-7. I had an employee who had an accident on Sat and the courts deemed it covered under WC because it was a company car.
April 12th, 2011 at 7:52 am
This story is tragic and the outcome sounds fair to me. Losing a loved one is a horrible loss and I’m sure that McVey’s widow would rather he return and not a worker’s comp check. I understand that the Ins. co. only are trying to protect themselves but a thorough investigation would have avoided an appeal in court. Not everyone is out to “Damn the man” some are just trying to get what they are entitled to. Again sad story and condolences for the family.
April 12th, 2011 at 8:16 am
This should not of even went to court it is a open and shut case. I think it was a case of the company and workers comp. trying to pull a fast one on the widow hoping she would not fight them. Everyone knows that injuries and accidents that take place in a company vehicle tending to company business, or traveling to a conference is covered by workers comp. I’m glad the widow got compensated for her lost.
April 12th, 2011 at 8:41 am
The spouse in this case is intitled to the W/C survivor’s benefits. Due to the fact that he was traveling to another location other than his normal work place, as a directive from the company, he may or may not have been at the location of the accident at the time. If he had been traveling directly to the normal work place, this case would be viewed differently.
April 12th, 2011 at 9:01 am
I know if Tru Green treats its Associates like this, they are definitely on my DO NOT USE LIST. My condolences to the Widow.
April 12th, 2011 at 9:17 am
This is a case that may seem outlandish in parts, but I completely agree with the decision. The facts are there and with the special consideration that he was driving a company provided vehicle, the ruling is a good one.
Although the end factors are terrible to his family, I am sorry that it happened, but what about the other person’s insurance carrier? Will the widow go after that individual? Money cannot bring anyone back from death, nor can it comfort.
April 12th, 2011 at 10:48 am
I agree with the courts decision on this one
April 13th, 2011 at 9:22 am
It is tragic that a loss of life has occurred, but if this conference was not a condition of employment, and he choose to attend, sorry about his luck. Heartless, I know. Nonetheless, if he was not instructed by the employer to make a mandatory appearance at his particular function, I cannot see how that electing on his own to attend should be the responsibility of the employer.
My sincere condolences to the family and loved ones.
April 13th, 2011 at 9:37 am
@Leroy, the company who should be ashamed is Zurich the insurance company, not Tru Green.
April 14th, 2011 at 9:11 am
@Rufus, please re-read the story “TruGreen had required McVey to attend”
April 14th, 2011 at 10:38 am
I agree with Jason, this just cost more money for the Insurance company and the lawyer will reap and they will pass it along to the consumer. My condolences to the family.
Rufus every supervisor makes a choice to better the company and by attending a class that helps them better manage the employees will make the company that much better.
April 14th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Good decision by the court.
April 14th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Totally agree with the court’s decision. Thanks “David P” took the words right out of my mouth.