Do you have employees who travel during their workday? Do you fully understand their exposures? Is it clear when they are driving within the course and scope of employment?
Many of you have heard of the Ninedorf vs. Joyal case, which took place in Wisconsin in 2014. To summarize the case: Mr. Ninedorf and Mr. Joyal worked for a beverage distributor. One Friday afternoon, a customer requested an order from Mr. Joyal and the two men left to deliver the beer together. After the delivery was complete, they stayed at the location for multiple drinks and proceeded to visit several other bars in a nearby town. While Mr. Joyal was driving the two men home, they were involved in an accident which left Mr. Ninedorf paralyzed.
The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to Mr. Joyal’s personal automobile insurer on the basis that the exclusive remedy rule applied - because Mr. Ninedorf was within the course of employment at the time of the injury. Multiple maps confirmed the city where the men were last drinking was a rational place to travel between the delivery and returning home. They continued their trip home along a reasonable route and were deemed to be back in the course of employment.
While there are various opinions regarding the outcome of this case, the court ruled the men had returned to the course of employment due to the route they were traveling and therefore, despite intoxication, workers’ compensation benefit are the exclusive remedy.
This case is just one example of the exposures of traveling employees. For questions regarding potential risks of your employees, contact a knowledge broker at R&R Insurance.
