In Roadsafe Traffic Systems, two claimants were seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident during their commute to work in a RoadSafe company truck. RoadSafe disputed the claims, arguing that the claimants’ injuries did not arise out of and in the course of their employment as they were commuting to work. The ALJ awarded the claimant’s worker’s compensation benefits, and the Industrial Claim Appeals Office (the Panel) affirmed the award. Roadsafe and its insurer appealed the orders to the Colorado Court of Appeals (the Court).
The ALJ ruled in favor of the claimants because (1) the claimants were provided with a company vehicle and fuel card for commuting between home and work; (2) the claimants were working at the time of the accident because they were conducting a pre-shift meeting in their vehicle; and (3) RoadSafe maintained some level of control over the manner in which the claimants commuted to work as RoadSafe required the claimants to do the following: log into the electronic fleet monitoring system prior to the commute; use the truck only for business purposes; conduct a pre-trip inspection even prior to the commute; and comply with federal DOT regulations limiting drivers’ work hours.
The Court reviewed the Panel’s application of the law to the facts and its ultimate conclusion. Under the “going to and from work” rule, employees generally do not qualify for benefits if injured while commuting, as travel time typically does not constitute performance of services arising out of and in the course of employment.
However, exceptions to the going to and from work rule can apply when considering multiple factors, including whether (1) the travel occurred during working hours; (2) the travel occurred on or off the employer’s premises; (3) the employment contract contemplated the travel; and (4) the obligations or conditions of employment created a “zone of special danger” out of which the injury arose. The third factor applies when an employer provides transportation or pays the cost of the employee’s travel to and from work.
The employer held that the claimants did not use the company truck for anything other than commuting. However, the Court disagreed that this factual distinction is dispositive. The real distinction is whether an employer pays the employee’s cost of commuting. If so, then the employment contract includes the employee’s transportation. The employer also argued that the evidence does not support that they paid for the claimant’s cost of commuting, but the Court outright dismissed this argument.
The employer also argued it did not require the claimants to use the company truck for their commute, but the Court does not find this fact controlling. Even if travel in the company truck is not required, travel is still part of the employment contract when it is an inducement to employment, such as when the employer provides a benefit by covering the cost of transportation, which applies in this case due to the fuel card. In addition, the employer has conceded that the use of the company truck was a perk of the claimants’ employment. The Court also determined that the ALJ can properly infer that employees with access to a company vehicle for commuting, and to a fuel card, could use the fuel card to cover the cost of commuting.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the employment contract contemplated the claimants’ travel because the employer provided a vehicle and covered the costs of the claimants’ commute with a fuel card. Thus, the Court affirmed the Panel’s order, and the claimants were awarded worker’s compensation benefits.
Roadsafe Traffic Sys., Inc. & AIU Ins. Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office & Clanton, 2025 WL 1419807, No. 24CA0684 (Colo App. May 15, 2025).
Want to know more? Contact Madison Winker at mwinker@pollartmiller.com
