Texas High Court Reverses Denial of Work Comp for at Home Worker

Article

An insurance company improperly denied workers’ compensation coverage for a woman injured while traveling in a company car from one workplace to another, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled.

Liana Leordeanu, a pharmaceutical sales representative who worked out of her Austin home, was seriously injured in 2003 while driving to a storage unit provided by her company before returning to her home office after meeting with customers. The storage unit happened to be adjacent to the apartment complex where Leordeanu lived.

Because she worked from home and was returning there, her company’s workers’ compensation carrier, American Protection Insurance Co., denied Leordeanu’s claim. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission agreed, “concluding that Leordeanu was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of her accident,” according to court documents.

At trial, a jury sided with Leordeanu but an appeals court “reversed and rendered judgment for APIC, holding that there was no evidence to support the verdict,” Justice Nathan Hecht wrote in delivering the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion.

The Supreme Court in an 8-1 ruling found the company was wrong in denying coverage and the appeals court erred in reversing the decision of the trial court.

Justice Hecht acknowledged that traveling home from work does not typically fall in “the scope and course of employment.” But he said traveling from one workplace to another while on the way home could be considered a work related activity.

“[L]eaving aside the fact that she officed at home and intended to do some paperwork there before retiring for the night, Leordeanu was also on her way from an employer-sponsored dinner to an employer-provided storage facility to empty her company car of business supplies,” Justice Hecht wrote. “APIC cites no authority suggesting that such activity was not work-related, and we hold it was.”

The case is Liana Leordeanu v. American Protection Insurance Company, No. 09-0330.

LEORDEANUopinion

Was this article valuable?