## Facts

- Jessica Wilson worked at an Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG) office in Utah.
- While walking into work, she tripped and fell in a parking lot adjacent to IHG’s office building.
- IHG did not own the parking lot but had contractual rights to use it, including a nonexclusive right to use the lot and exclusive rights to certain spaces.
- The lot had no obvious tripping hazards (e.g., ice, cracks, or defects) at the time of the fall.
- Wilson severely injured her right foot, underwent two surgeries, and had her right third toe amputated.
- Wilson sought workers’ compensation benefits; IHG and its carrier, American Zurich Insurance Co., denied the claim under the going-and-coming rule.
- An ALJ awarded benefits under the premises rule; the Utah Labor Commission affirmed; the Utah Court of Appeals certified the case to the Utah Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilson’s injury occurred “in the course of” employment under the premises exception to the going-and-coming rule when the fall occurred in a non-owned parking lot subject to IHG’s contractual use rights.
2. Whether Wilson’s injury “arose out of” employment when the fall involved a neutral or unexplained risk and no specific defect or unusual hazard was identified.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Commission’s award of benefits.
- The Court held Wilson was injured “in the course of” employment because the parking lot constituted IHG’s premises for workers’ compensation purposes.
- The Court held Wilson’s injury “arose out of” employment because her employment required or reasonably expected her to traverse the employer-designated parking area, and Utah law does not require proof of a discrete defect or heightened hazard.
- The Court applied correction-of-error review to legal questions and deferred to supported factual findings by the Commission.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation requires proof that an injury both “arose out of” and occurred “in the course of” employment; both prongs must be met.
- The going-and-coming rule generally bars coverage for injuries while commuting, but the premises exception covers a reasonable time on the employer’s premises even before work begins or after it ends.
- An employer’s “premises” is not limited to property it owns; it may include areas functionally connected to the workplace that the employer has the right to use and directs or expects employees to use (including shared parking areas).
- Under Utah’s risk-classification approach, neutral risks may be compensable when employment places the worker at the location where the risk results in injury.
- To satisfy “arising out of,” employment need not be the sole cause; it is sufficient that employment is a contributing cause by exposing the employee to the risk at the relevant time and place.

## Conclusion

The court upheld workers’ compensation coverage for an employee injured while entering work through an employer-designated parking area, concluding the lot qualified as the employer’s premises despite non-ownership and that a neutral-risk fall can satisfy causation without proof of a specific defect when employment places the employee in the risk’s path.


Intercontinental Hotels Grp. v. Utah Labor Comm’n, 2019 UT 55, 448 P.3d 1270 (Utah 2019)