## Facts

- Juan De Los Santos worked for Ram Production Services and was furnished a company truck for job-related travel within Buck Hamilton Ranch.
- His workday began at 6:00 a.m.; on June 29, 2005, around 5:50 a.m., he died in a motor-vehicle accident while driving from home toward the ranch.
- That morning he intended to meet Rogelio Clarke at a well to perform work; during a call he agreed to bring a barrel to catch petroleum.
- The meeting and barrel task were not formally scheduled by the employer.
- The Division of Workers’ Compensation denied death benefits, finding the fatal injuries did not occur in the course and scope of employment.
- The widow sought judicial review; the trial court granted her summary judgment awarding benefits, and the insurer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record conclusively established that the decedent was acting in the course and scope of employment when he was killed while driving to work.
2. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed under the coming-and-going rule and the employer-furnished-vehicle exception, including whether the company truck was provided merely as a gratuity.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the claimant’s summary judgment.
- The court held that the evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact on course and scope of employment at the time of the accident.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, an injury is within the course and scope of employment when it occurs while the employee is furthering the employer’s business and performing work-originated duties.
- The coming-and-going rule generally excludes injuries sustained while traveling to and from work from compensability.
- An exception may apply when the employer furnishes transportation as part of the employment relationship or when the travel itself serves the employer’s business beyond an ordinary commute.
- Summary judgment is improper when the record supports competing reasonable inferences on a material element; evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

## Conclusion

Because the record permitted conflicting inferences about whether the employer-provided truck and the purpose of the trip placed the decedent’s travel within the furnished-transportation exception (or instead amounted to a noncompensable commute), the court held course and scope could not be decided as a matter of law and required fact-finding on remand.


Am. Home Assurance Co. v. De Los Santos, No. 04-10-00541-CV, 2012 WL 131410 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 18, 2012)