Does Utah's going and coming rule apply to temporary employees? Windsor Ins. v. Am. States Explained

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.