Zurich American Insurance Co. v. McVey

After her husband Troy McVey was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving to Houston for a job-related training conference, appellee Chantal McVey, as Troy's beneficiary, sought workers' compensation survivor benefits from Troy's employer's insurance carrier, appellant Zurich American Insurance Co. Zurich denied coverage, asserting that Troy's death was not compensable because he had not been acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of his fatal accident. The undisputed facts establish that the "coming and going" rule did not apply to the travel in which Troy McVey was engaged at the time of his fatal accident, that this travel furthered the business of his employer and that it originated in the business of his employer. Troy was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, and his death was compensable. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of McVey and in denying Zurich's motion. Austin Court of Appeals, No. 03-09-00666-CV, 03-30-2011

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

After her husband Troy McVey was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving to Houston for a job-related training conference, appellee Chantal McVey, as Troy’s beneficiary, sought workers’ compensation survivor benefits from Troy’s employer’s insurance carrier, appellant Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”).*fn1 Zurich denied coverage, asserting that Troy’s death was not compensable because he had not been acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of his fatal accident. McVey sought review of Zurich’s decision before the Division of Workers’ Compensation, which concluded that Troy had, in fact, been acting within the course and scope of his employment and that his death was, therefore, compensable. Zurich sought judicial review of the Division’s order in district court, where the parties, agreeing that the controlling question of whether Troy had been acting within the course and scope of his employment turned solely on issues of law rather than disputed material facts, filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted McVey’s motion and denied Zurich’s. In a single issue on appeal, Zurich asserts the district court erred in its legal determination that Troy had been acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of his accident. We will affirm the district court’s judgment.

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. McVey

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal