A Traveling Technician, Two Beers, and Two States
Brattle Mechanical, an HVAC contractor based in State A, sends technician Omar to a three-day manufacturer training 180 miles away in State B. Brattle pays the hotel, a $60 per diem, mileage, and Omar's hourly rate for travel and class time. On the second evening after class, Omar drives two miles to a restaurant, drinks two beers, and on the way back strikes a pedestrian, who later sues Brattle for $1.2 million. Omar's blood alcohol is 0.11 and his wrist is fractured. State B's workers' compensation act covers injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, applies the coming-and-going rule with a traveling-employee exception, and provides a 50% increase in benefits where intoxication caused the injury. Omar files in State B. Brattle's policy is written for State A with a $1 million employers liability limit and no other-states endorsement. The pedestrian's estate argues Brattle is vicariously liable because Omar was on a business trip.
1. Is Omar's wrist injury compensable? Address travel status, the personal-comfort doctrine, and the intoxication provision.
Read the worked answer
Omar was a traveling employee. He was away from his regular workplace overnight at the employer's direction and expense, so the coming-and-going rule does not bar the claim. A traveling employee remains in the course of employment during reasonable personal activities such as eating and sleeping, unless he makes a distinct departure on a personal errand. Dinner two miles from the hotel falls within the personal-comfort doctrine, and two beers alone do not convert the trip into a frolic.
Intoxication is the employer's strongest lever, but it must be shown to have caused the injury. Most statutes require proof of causation, not merely the presence of alcohol; at 0.11 some states apply a presumption, but the adjuster must still connect the drinking to the collision. The pending pedestrian suit may generate blood and accident evidence that helps. The wrist fracture is compensable subject to that causation fight and any statutory reduction, so do not deny outright on the assumption that any alcohol defeats the claim.
2. Can the pedestrian recover from Brattle, and does the employers liability part of the policy respond?
Read the worked answer
Vicarious liability turns on scope of employment at the moment of impact, not on the fact of the trip. The employer is liable if Omar was serving the employer's business or had made only a minor deviation from it. The estate will argue that travel status makes the whole evening work-related; Brattle will argue that a two-beer dinner is a personal frolic. Courts weigh time, place, purpose, and foreseeability.
The exclusive-remedy bar does not protect Brattle against the pedestrian, because the pedestrian is not an employee. That is exactly what employers liability coverage addresses: third-party bodily injury the employer is legally obligated to pay because of an employee's acts in the course of employment. The $1 million limit sits below the $1.2 million demand, and defense costs are typically payable in addition, so the exposure above the limit is real. Brattle should understand that the workers' compensation part pays benefits, not tort damages; the two parts must not be conflated in the reserve analysis.
3. What does the absence of an other-states endorsement mean, and what should the adjuster and underwriter do now?
Read the worked answer
The question arises because Brattle is localized in State A while the injury and claim are in State B. Most states will accept jurisdiction where the injury occurred and will apply their own act and benefit schedule. Without an other-states or all-states endorsement, the carrier may have no filed authority in State B, and the policy's Part Three conditions may not extend benefits there.
That does not leave the injured worker without a remedy. State B may treat Brattle as an uninsured employer and require it to secure coverage, which can mean posting a bond or paying benefits directly. The adjuster should confirm the policy's other-states language and the state filing rules, and determine whether State A coverage extends to temporary out-of-state presence. The underwriting lesson is that travel exposure was never asked about. Going forward Brattle needs an endorsement naming the states where employees travel, and the adjuster should confirm what State B will award before setting the reserve.