Summary
The Louisiana First Circuit affirmed summary judgment dismissing Ellen F. Earhart’s workers’ compensation claim against Great American Insurance Company and Sentry Insurance Company. The majority held that Earhart’s motor-vehicle accident while returning from a self-chosen hurricane evacuation occurred outside the course and scope of her employment and did not arise out of her employment. A dissent argued that Great American’s Hurricane Preparedness Plan supported applying an exception to the going-and-coming rule.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the workers' compensation judge properly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding the employee's motor vehicle accident did not occur in the course and scope of her employment.
Holdings
- The summary judgment was properly granted because there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff was not in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident. Her travel was a personal choice to evacuate, and she was not engaged in any employment activity, on a specific mission for the employer, or in a situation where the employer had interested itself in her transportation.
Key quotations
“The summary judgment evidence establishes that plaintiff was a salaried employee of Great American as an insurance underwriter who worked remotely at her home.”
“The summary judgment evidence also reveals that plaintiff had no duty to perform a service or task en route to Houston.”
“Therefore, plaintiff’s accident was outside the course and scope of her employment.”
Factual background
Plaintiff was a remote worker employed by Great American Insurance Company. In anticipation of Hurricane Ida, she evacuated from her home office in Metairie, Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, using leave under her employer's 'Hurricane Preparedness Plan' (HPP). While traveling from Houston back to Metairie, she was involved in a motor vehicle collision. She filed a workers' compensation claim alleging the accident occurred in the course and scope of her employment.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a disputed claim for workers' compensation benefits. Defendants moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The workers' compensation judge granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiff's cross-motion, dismissing the case with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed.