On November 21, 2023, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, addressed whether an employee’s car accident occurred while in the course and scope of his employment and would therefore be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act in the case Keim v. Above All Termite & Pest Control. In finding that the employee’s claim was compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Supreme Court held that an employee is “in the course of employment” under the “Authorized Vehicle Rule” when (1) the employer authorizes a vehicle for operation by the employee; and (2) the employee’s operation of that vehicle is for business expressly authorized by the employer.
In this case the employee, Keim, was a salaried pest control technician who performed work related services at residential and commercial properties. His employer, Above All Termite & Pest Control, provided him with a vehicle for work use which the employee drove in the morning from his home to various work sites and then returned home at the end of the work day in the same vehicle. The employer allowed Keim, as it did with other technicians, to keep his authorized vehicle at home overnight. Daily work assignments were posted on company iPads and the employees were expected to clock-in each morning using those iPads. Furthermore, Above All limited the quantity of supplies that the technicians could keep in their authorized vehicles overnight so it allowed the technicians to drive their vehicles to the shop in order to retrieve whatever supplies they needed before going to the scheduled work sites.
On the morning of the accident, Keim clocked in on his iPad, received his work order and concluded that his vehicle lacked sufficient supplies to perform the scheduled task. Accordingly, he drove to the shop from his home to obtain those supplies as was the procedure established by his Above All. On his way to the shop, Keim sustained serious injuries from a car accident which required hospitalization, surgery and follow up medical care.
Keim filed a claim seeking benefits under the Workers Compensation Act for his injuries. Above All’s workers’ compensation carrier denied Keim’s claim and sought to dismiss the petition in its entirety arguing that Keim’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. At an evidentiary hearing the Workers’ Compensation Judge concluded that Keim was merely commuting to work when he sustained his injuries from the car accident and therefore was not acting out of and in the course of employment. As a result, Keim’s claim petition was dismissed with prejudice.
On appeal, the employer argued that the Workers’ Compensation Act created a bright line “going and coming rule” rule, now known as the “premises rule” whereby injuries sustained while commuting to or from work are noncompensable. Keim responded that that his injuries were compensable because he was operating an “employer authorized vehicle” on business that was “expressly authorized and directed by his employer”. Therefore, Keim argued that he was acting within the course of his employment.
The Supreme Court recognized that the Workers’ Compensation Act sets forth four different rules governing when an employee is considered to be “in the course of employment”: the “premises rule”; the “special mission rule”; the “paid travel time rule”; and the “authorized vehicle rule”.
The Supreme Court explained that the “premises rule” addresses an employee reporting to work at an employer’s place of employment. In such scenario, employment shall be deemed to commence when an employee arrives at the employer’s place of employment.
The “special mission rule” addresses the situation when employees are tasked with performing duties away from “the employer’s place of business”. In such a scenario, the employee shall be deemed in the course of employment when the employee is engaged in the direct performance of duties assigned or directed by the employer.
Under “paid travel time rule”, the employee is to be considered acting in the scope of employment when that employee is paid for time spent traveling to and from a job site. Thus, when an employee moves from one job-site to another at the request of the employer and is paid during that travel, the employee is covered by this rule.
Finally, the “authorized vehicle rule” applies to the scenario when an employee utilizes an employer authorized vehicle on business authorized by the employer. In such a setting the employee is to be considered to be “in the course of their employment” and, as such, workers’ compensation benefits would be available should injuries occur. The Supreme Court noted however, that the “authorized vehicle rule” does not apply every time an employee is driving a vehicle authorized by his or her employer and does not categorically apply when an employee is merely commuting to work in an authorized personal or work vehicle.
It was against this last setting that the Supreme Court recognized that the Keim’s operation of the vehicle to the shop on the morning of the car accident was solely for business expressly identified and authorized by Above All. The record revealed that the employee needed to replenish supplies on that morning which reflected a business decision expressly designed by the employer. In holding that the employee’s injuries were compensable, the Supreme Court explained:
Keim was not “merely” commuting to work; rather, he was obtaining needed supplies at a non-work site location as he was authorized to do so by his employer. The fact that the replenishment occurred before his first worksite job rather than between two jobs does not alter the nature of Keim’s trip to the shop. Keim was in the course of employment at the time of the accident, and his injuries are therefore compensable.
The Supreme Court ruled that in this instance the employee was acting “in the course of employment” under the “authorized vehicle rule” and therefore his injuries were compensable.
Legal Update by Richard Gaeckle, Esq., of Petro Cohen, P.C.
Loading...