Searle v. Legacy Restoration Holdings, LLC, No. WC25-6612 (WCCA April 16, 2026).
Compensation Judge: David Bateson
The Employee, John Searle, was a sales representative for Legacy Restoration Holdings. As part of the hiring process, he was provided with an employee handbook and a vehicle safety manual. The vehicle safety manual outlined driver safety guidelines, cell phone safe use guidelines, driver selections, motor vehicle records, vehicle maintenance, accident reporting, and disciplinary action. The Employee signed an acknowledgement form indicating he had read and understood the policies. On August 28, 2021, while traveling to a work meeting in Farmington, MN, he was involved in a severe motor vehicle accident. Witnesses reported that he was driving at excessive speeds and tailgating prior to losing control and striking a tree. He suffered catastrophic injuries, including spinal fractures, a lacerated spleen, and significant internal trauma. That morning, before the crash, the Employee was also working as an independent contractor for another entity, HomePro America, and had completed personal errands earlier that morning. The Employer and Insurer denied liability, arguing that the injury did not occur in the course of employment and was barred by the “prohibited act” defense due to the Employee’s reckless driving.
The compensation judge’s decision followed an eight-day hearing involving 13 witnesses and over 250 exhibits. The judge found that the Employee was a traveling employee who generally enjoyed portal-to-portal coverage. While the Employer argued that personal errands earlier in the day severed this coverage, the judge noted that the Employee was on the same route he would have taken had he traveled directly from his home to the work site in Farmington. The judge concluded the injury occurred in the “area of the employer’s business” and thus within the course of employment.
The Employer argued the Employee’s reckless driving (speeding and tailgating) constituted a prohibited act that barred benefits. The judge rejected this defense and noted thatthere was no evidence in the record that the Employer actually enforced its safe driving policies or had ever disciplined other employees for speeding or aggressive driving. The judge found there was no formal training regarding these policies and no company-wide consensus on what specific driving conduct actually violated the manual. Interestingly, the judge also found that the primary cause of the injuries was the driving of the unidentified pickup truck driver, rather than the Employee’s own driving.
Regarding the AWW, the judge set the AWW at $1,760.25, but excluded significant potential income. The judge excluded over $27,000 in expected commissions because the contracts had not been fully fulfilled at the time of injury. The Employee’s attorney alleged penalties for “frivolous” denial. The judge denied that claim, but he did penalize the Employer’s conduct during the four-year litigation. The judge sanctioned the Employer for the unintentional loss of electronic data that could have tracked the Employee’s location. He granted an adverse evidentiary inference and inferred that the electronic data would have supported the Employee’s testimony about his location.
The WCCA affirmed that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. As a traveling employee, the Employee generally enjoyed portal-to-portal coverage. Although he engaged in personal errands earlier in the day, the court found he had re-entered the course of employment because he was on the “normal route” he would have taken from his home to the work site at the time of the accident.
Regarding the prohibited act defense, the court held that the Employer failed to prove the safety policies were consistently enforced or clearly communicated as absolute prohibitions. The court clarified that driving is a “permissible act” while performing it in an “impermissible manner” (reckless driving) does not trigger the prohibited act defense under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act.
The court affirmed the modified average weekly wage of $1,760.25. The court deemed the expected commissions as “speculative” and excluded them because the Employee failed to prove they were fully earned prior to the accident.
Finally, the WCCA upheld the denial of penalties for “frivolous” defenses. The court determined that the Employer’s arguments regarding the traveling employee exceptions and the prohibited act defense were “reasonable, colorable, and good faith defenses” that required a judge to resolve conflicting facts and witness credibility.