You’re sitting at home, coffee in hand. You decide to get a head start on the day and finish a few assignments before driving into work. You send a few emails and complete a few reports. You then get into your car and start driving to work.
Suddenly, another car runs a red light and slams into your vehicle. Your car is destroyed and your neck is hurting. You’re wondering: Does workers’ compensation cover my injuries?
- What if your travel was reimbursed by the Employer?
- What if you typically work from home and you were just traveling to the office (another workplace)?
Workers’ compensation coverage can get complicated and blurry when it comes to “traveling employees” and employees that are commuting.
To be compensable, an injury must not only arise out of employment, but it also must have occurred in the course of employment. This means that the injury occurred (1) when it takes place in the period of employment, (2) at a place where the employee reasonably may be and (3) while she is fulfilling her duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.
When analyzing a traveling employee, courts look at:
- Where the employee was
- What the employee was doing
- If the employee was required to be traveling as part of their duties.
The Coming and Going Rule
The general rule is that workers’ compensation benefits are available to employees who sustain injuries “while engaged in, on, or about the premises where the employee’s services require the employee’s presence as a part of that service at the time of the injury and during the hours of that service. Minn. Stat. § 176.011, subd 16.
Simply put, workers’ compensation covers injuries that happen (1) at work while the employee is at work, and (2) doing their job during work hours.
But generally, injuries that occur when an employee is travelling to and from work (while commuting) are not compensable. This is the “coming and going” rule.
But there are several exceptions to this rule:
- Travel as a part of service
- Travel Between Workplaces
- Business Travel
Swanson by Swanson v. Fairway Foods, 439 N.W2d 722, 724 (Minn. 1989).
Travel as a Part of Service
An employee can recover for injuries sustained while traveling through the “Travel as a Part of Service Rule.” The Employee must show that travel was a part of their employment. This raises some questions to ask, such as:
- Did this trip further the employer’s interest?
- Did the employee receive complete or partial reimbursement for the trip?
- Did the employee receive wages for the time travelling?
Travel Between Workplaces
Another exception to the coming and going rule is where an employee travels between two workplaces. Injuries sustained while traveling between two workplaces could be compensable if the employee (1) regularly travels for work and (2) travels away from regular employment locations at the time of injury.
- Even if the employee takes a longer route than necessary between the workplaces, the injury sustained could still be compensable.
Business Travel
There are situations where a traveling employee will be considered “in the course of employment” continuously. One of these situations is if the employee is on a business trip.
Injuries occurring during these trips could be compensable even if they would likely be considered non-compensable on their own like food poisoning, hotel fires, etc.
Notably, the WCCA has recently reached a contrary opinion on portal-to-portal coverage. In Bank v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, slip on., a physician was injured while attending a continuing medical education seminar. The Compensation Judge held that although the Employee was a “traveling employee,” the injury was not compensable because the injury did not arise to an increased risk of employment.
There are also some exceptions to the general business travel rule:
“Personal Mission Exception”
- The “personal mission exception” is an exception to the traveling employee/business travel rule.
An injury will likely be non-compensable when the employee departs from the employer’s business and engages in a “personal mission.”
- Is this a reasonable activity that may be normally expected of a traveling employee?
Example: A bus driver transported a group of people to northern Minnesota for a weekend trip. On a Saturday night when he was off work, he went to a bar. He was shot by a stray bullet in the parking lot. This is likely a “reasonable activity.” That is, his presence at the bar. Voight v. Rettinger Transportation, Inc., 306 N.W.2d 133 (Minn. 1981).
What about other circumstances that may put an employee “on the road” so to speak?
Special Errand Rule
If the Employee shows he or she is on a “special errand” for the Employer, injuries sustained as a result are compensable.
Example: Employee was called into work to replace a fuse on a Sunday. He was killed while driving home. The court held the Employee was in the course and scope of his employment from the moment he left his house until his return. Nehring v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 258 N.W. 307 (Minn. 1935).
The Special Errand Rule applies if the elements of the Youngberg test are met, this means:
- There is an express or implied request that the service be performed after working hours by an employee who has fixed hours of employment.
- The trip involved on the errand be an integral part of the service performed.
- The work is related to employment is special in the sense that the task is not regular and recurring during the normal hours of employment.
The cause of the accident is not a factor in a Special Errand case if the Youngberg test is fulfilled and if no other exception applies (horseplay, intoxication, self-inflicted injury, etc.). Youngberg v. Donlin., 119 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 1963).
Employee-Furnished Transportation
If Employee is (1) required to have the vehicle and (2) injured while driving to work, the work injury could be compensable.
An injury may be compensable if the Employer has a written policy regarding vehicles. Written policies that authorize the use of personal vehicles during the workday, allow reimbursement of personal vehicle mileage, and imposing minimum insurance requirements on vehicles are examples of this. Lieske v. Sheriff’s Youth Programs of Minnesota, slip op. (W.C.C.A Apr. 25, 1995).
Things that may be critical to the analysis:
- Whether the vehicle is integral to the job duties;
- Whether the employee is compensated for the time traveling to and from work;
- Whether the work day has started
Dual Purpose Doctrine
Arises when an employee’s travel is for both personal and business reasons. Injuries occurring during such trips are compensable if the trip involves the performance of a service for the employer which causes the trip to be taken even if it has not coincided with a personal injury.
Original article from FJL Spring 2025 Seminar: Will Moody (612) 746-3469 | wmoody@fitchjohnson.com Dan Skarie (612) 746-6631 | dskarie@fitchjohnson.com