Utah Court of Appeals
Does Utah's going and coming rule apply to temporary employees? Windsor Ins. v. Am. States Explained
Summary
Windsor Insurance sued American States Insurance seeking indemnification after Windsor’s insured was injured in an accident with a temporary employee traveling to a landfill work assignment. The trial court granted summary judgment for American States, finding the going and coming rule barred liability because the temporary employee was commuting to work in her own vehicle.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Windsor Insurance Company v. American States Insurance Company, a temporary employment agency placed Brenda Chambers in a clerical position at a landfill. While driving to the assignment in her boyfriend’s car, Chambers collided with another vehicle, injuring both drivers. Windsor Insurance, which insured the other driver, paid the claim and obtained a default judgment against Chambers. Nearly five years later, Windsor sued American States, the employment agency’s insurer, seeking indemnification under a theory of vicarious liability.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the going and coming rule barred the insurer’s liability for the temporary employee’s accident during her commute. Windsor argued that temporary employees should be exempt from this rule because they regularly travel to different work sites and their commute constituted the “essence” of their employment duties.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling. The court applied the established principle that employers are liable for employee negligence only when acting within the course and scope of employment. The going and coming rule creates an exception, recognizing that commuting accidents result from risks faced by all travelers rather than employment-specific hazards. The court refused to create a special exception for temporary employees, noting that the employment agency did not require Chambers to use her vehicle, provide compensation for travel time, or direct her route. Her commute was indistinguishable from any other employee traveling to work.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts will not expand vicarious liability exceptions without compelling circumstances. To establish employer liability for employee automobile accidents, practitioners must demonstrate specific employer control over travel methods, routes, or provide evidence of travel time compensation. The court’s rejection of Windsor’s argument that purchasing work-appropriate clothing furthered the employer’s business interests shows the high bar for overcoming the going and coming rule defense.
Case Details
Case Name
Windsor Ins. v. Am. States
Citation
2001 UT App 98
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20000093-CA
Date Decided
March 29, 2001
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The going and coming rule bars an insurer’s liability for a temporary employee’s automobile accident during her commute to a work site where the employer did not require use of the employee’s vehicle, compensate for travel time, or direct the route taken.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment decisions, giving no deference to the trial court’s legal determinations
Practice Tip
When seeking to establish vicarious liability for employee automobile accidents, document specific employer control over travel methods, routes, or compensation for travel time to overcome the going and coming rule defense.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.